Anotherthing,
Yes I see what your saying about Farnborough.We have been working helis out to over 100 miles in Class G since North Sea Oil was discovered.Also we have provided a LARS service,to stop zone infringements,and keep our light aviation friends in the picture.From that aspect our operations are trying to do the same thing.I think where we differ,is the amount of military that conflict with our traffic,with little or no notice.That takes up a lot of time from our primary tasks.We also have a lot of IFR traffic in Class G,and whatever our military friends say,we try to give these aircraft the best service.
Back to thread,
It's not just 2 zone infringement.That is the tip of a pretty big hill.Some aren't even reported because we can't trace the aircraft involved.
I'm all for liason visits,and we see other ATC units.It's a very very long time since I saw any FJ pilots visit our ATC unit.Perhaps even back to the 80's.

"It's a very very long time since I saw any FJ pilots visit our ATC unit."

Your reputation clearly preceeds you..........

Perhaps those pointy hats with a D on the front that Mr Dyce provides are the wrong size?

Yes, indeed he did. But it's not your place to have an equally 'chipped' rant in return, on behalf of the mil aircrew you obviously defer to. At least not until they make you their spokesman. Till then, you are also a guest here and it's not your battle to fight.

If you'd posted your reply made at 20:48 as your initial response (albeit a little too rose tinted and gushing for my liking), you'd have added some sensible comment to the debate. But, like part of the thread starters first post, you were unecessarily confrontational and stupid in my opinion.

All things are relative. In airspace in the North of the UK, nearly all the infringements ARE by military aircraft, whereas in the South, most are by GA aircraft. The frequency is probably low, perhaps a few every month, but when they do occur they are routinely made by military aircraft, especially in the Aberdeen area. Until each incident is investigated and a degree of risk assessed, the travelling public have possibly been endangered. It is unlikely to have been done in a reckless manner, but that would depend on the circumstances offered for the infringement occurring. For example, would pilots carrying out of date maps, or maps which had insufficient data on the airspace, be deemed reckless perhaps ? That would be something for the legal system to decide if the unthinkable happened.

Absolutely. But being human (in spite of the God like status some would like to place on them), mistakes are made. The crux of the matter is to find out why and to see what can be done to prevent them (as far as humanly possible) in the future.

I would suggest you don't have any idea about the facts of some of the incidents from that statement. There are quite a few incidents where civil aircraft have been given avoiding action by ATC or have taken TCAS action. There are also many more where no civil aircraft have been in the way but by luck rather than design. These involve quite significant incursions in to the airspace. In fact, for fleeting breaches, I'd say that most controllers are more likely to have a quiet word with the pilot via an ATC Supervisor or through the squadron rather than go for formal reporting.

Your opinion of course :ok:

I've never felt inadequate compared to an RAF pilot, nor any other for that matter. They have my respect as a fellow professional in the industry but I am sure I do my job just as well and professionally as they do using the skills, previous training, and experience I possess uniquely for my profession. As do they.

Pprune Radar,
In this neck of the woods,the unit policy was to report every incident,infringement whatever,as Nats were trying out this new reporting scheme.It is often impossible to report every infringement,as we can't trace the aircraft.They are low level on 7001 and gone below radar cover.
The ones I'm concerned about are the real howlers,where something has gone badly wrong with flight planning.Also the ones that cross the CTA 4000 plus ft above the base.It's as if the CAS didn't exist.Why does it keep happening?
Perhaps my initial wording could have been more diplomatic,but I find it very difficult not to get rattled about what I saw yesterday.

Jackonicko,
You are going to have to think up some new material,because you're repeating yourself.What rag do you scribble for,so I can avoid buying it.:8

If you can't take a joke
 

You shouldn't have joined up!
The Torry Loon asked a reasonable question, even if wasn't in the most diplomatic manner. The average UK taxpayer, whilst supportive of the armed services, would rather not pay any increase in tax to provide the funding that they actually require because of the usual spin and BS that everything is OK, despite kit shortages, late over budget projects, white elephants and operational museum pieces.

With this in mind, can't you imagine the nanny state reaction to a mil/civvy nasty? Would the mil have to transit as GAT to safe airspace to train? Huge restrictions to an already overstretched budget.

What you do is vital, to all of us, not just in the UK. Equally, surely you don't want to sh1te on your own doorstep. I think the gist of the original question was, are you giving sufficient consideration to CAS whist flying, and if so how do these CAS infringements occur?

If Dyce ATC were a tad more flexible or even friendly towards mil callsigns perhaps guys would speak to them more often when flying in their vicinity .

If one already has comm's it's a lot easier to negotiate a poor-weather 'nibble' of the edge of someone's airspace or indeed to get a timely low-level abort service.

Does anyone else feel that Aberdeen's airspace is laterally oversized for the needs of its operation?

In my, albeit pre-Telic (!), experience I reckon that they were easily the least co-operative civil ATC unit for military transitees. The old Thames Radar and even Heathrow Approach seemed to bend over backwards in comparison.

Dyce-man - it's a two way thing - you've got the comfy chair and the coffee - GROW UP !!!

TAD, it is your duty to report every infringement and not just the ones you can identify. The RAF (using the Radar Analysis Cell at West Drayton/Swanwick) will do the tracing - its their job. If hey cannot find a suitable radar tape they will dig very deeply and get LFA booking info, pilot reports and even aicraft data recordings. There is little point in trying to demonstrate a trend (for example to the CAA in trying to justify more CAS or to the RAF to try and reach an arrangement) if you don't have the evidence.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

"If the radar controller had not taken avoiding action..."

Is that not what they are paid to do when the situation arises???

Lurking,
Yes we can sometimes trace them through those system you mentioned,but it's hardly worth it if it's just a nibble.However it's worth thinking about since we are required to report every infringement.

Top Bunker,
Well you've opened up a new can of worms here.Perhaps you don't realise that we are a diversion airfield for the military.We have virtually every weekday practice diversions with Tornados and the Nimrod schedule,and fit these in the best we can.These practice diversions are basically training flight,and of lower priority.However we quite often bend helis out a bit to accommodate your requests.I have never seen Aberdeen ATC do anything but be as flexible as possible with the military,when they bother to call.Also the speed differences with our traffic,means you get messed around sometimes.That's life.
You obviously have no understanding of ATC at Aberdeen.We are required to keep aircraft inside controlled airspace,and the airspace is designed to do that if we had to use the holds at the ADN and ATF.With traffic levels at about 450 movements a day during the week this happens on a regular basis.If you don't like the seat in your aircraft,then leave the RAF.I have my job to do and I suggest the juvenile thoughts are yours.
Perhaps a liason visit is needed.:ugh: You may need us in anger someday if you have an emergency.:eek:

TAD, I'll lay my cards on the table. I previously worked in the CAA and my section's responsibilities included monitoring the civil/mil interface. At the time, any safety interaction had the scrutiny of the highest level management. This had been brought about by a set of particularly nasty incidents. Indeed, after one the AAIB decided to shove their nose in. There was also a very close call between a Tornado and one of the oil rig Pumas just above an HMR.

Throughout, we found it very frustrating in trying to identify the scale of problems and particular hot spots. All too often would I take a call from someone saying "this is always happening".

There have been previous threads about open and honest reporting and transparency. No one in the aviation industry should shy away from filing even the most minor of report. The key bit is that a database can be properly populated and we can objectively identify exactly what is happening.

Lurking,
OK point taken.I was inclined to let the very minor ones go,but from now on everything will be reported,even if we can't trace them.I think the file is about to get a lot thicker.:ok:

TAD

And just out of interest when was the last time that you ATCers visited a fast-jet unit?:rolleyes:

And when was the last time you contacted the bases involved and invited them for a visit?

As a partly amused and partly horrified (at TADs manner) bystander to this thread may I respectfully suggest that if the powers that be (CAA/NATS etc.) are looking in at this thread then they give serious consideration to offering some pointed advice to the likes of TAD on how to approach subjects such as these.

To a casual observer it seems that with the approach used (confrontational and opinionated) this individual is seriously in danger of putting up a significant wall/barrier between the mil/civ communities and damaging any good work that has been done to date.

Safety is of course paramount but there are positive ways to go about addressing the issues and then there are detrimental approaches such as this.

I am also not sure of the impartiality of the moderator in this instance and might commend that where partiality may be an issue then a different moderator might have his attention drawn to the issue.

Please see this for what it is; an unengaged bystander with a mind for due process and fostering of safety,

HEDP

Guys,

ABZ is a very busy heliport & has it's fair share of fixed wing trade too. I have often looked at the scope & realised that there is a LOT of offshore traffic out there.

As an FC, I always call Dyce/Humber when controlling in the 613 or 323 complex & they are very keen to get things set up in a safe manner before the pointy things start hammering around at similar levels to the offshore rotary. Indeed, should you need a 5k base height for your sortie then Dyce will, more often than not, coordinate their traffic & stay well below you. There is infact a standing agreement between LU Sqns & Dyce to facilitate this in the 613 complex.

Although TADs initial post did not start the thread off well, we should not berate him into the ground simply because you do not want to hear what he has to say as a civvy. Plenty of posters on here have had very negative things to say about Civ ATCOs (myself included) however, I could just as easily post some howlers about the F3 community on here, as they could about FCs!

The sky is only safe if we are all working as a team.

Impartiality

I work in a joint ATC unit which services both civil and military needs.

This involves co-ordination and compromise on a continuous basis, by both sides of the house. If I was not part of the joint system we have in the UK, then I'd be quite legitimate in stonewalling every request made by my military colleagues to accomodate operations in airspace where civil aircraft have priority. But I am, and I don't. I work with my fellow controllers and, through my military ATC colleagues, indirectly with military aircrew, to try and meet the needs of all airspace users. Some examples from the last few days include AEW operations, early closure of MDAs, non squawking transit by military aircraft, cleared flight paths through civil routes, radar corridor use, etc, etc. The list is long, but routine.

A casual observer may of course not be aware of how the UK airspace system works, but in essence it is a joint one as I have described.

I also get involved in initial investigations of incidents such as infringements. Appropriate counselling is the preferred method of dealing with whoever made the error, be it aircrew or ATC, be it civil or military. Filing a report is also sometimes a necessary evil, to provide a record of the infringement for trend analysis purposes and detail the actions taken to prevent a reoccurence.

Impartiality has nothing to do with the topic I had an issue with ... which was the behaviour of some posters. If you take time to read what I actually said, you will find that in addition to generic comments about general behaviour, I specifically criticised both the thread starter (who is on my side of the house .. civil ATC) and a poster who is a rampant Forces supporter (on the other side of the house).

It is also of note that there are no appointed moderators for this Forum. There are a limited number of us who have access to moderate the whole site. None of them are military personnel. We all work in civil fields so your request for impartiality will be hard to meet.

Stirring of a diferent sort.
 

Throw a dyce, if you were there when Lossie was dark blue I bet you had fewer problems. There are those who know they are the best and others who think they are.

Had great service from you guys in my other life with Dan's one up on the 747's.

You have been getting a lot of unnecessarily rude flak from some who may be officers but are obviously not gentlemen.

Safety doe not happen by accident.

HEDP et al

TADs initial opener might have been diplomatically lacking - but until you have been on the receiving end and had to deal with something like he describes, then you really have no idea what it feels like. It's bad enough if you screw up and get two of your own aircraft close together... to use a rather base phrase you tend to 's:mad::mad:t yourself'.

Having one (or more) of your aircraft 'attacked' by an aircraft you know nothing about that should be well outside your airspace is even worse... avoiding action is always easier and more effective if you can give it to both parties concerned and not just one... especially when the intruder is a high speed/high energy aircraft.

Yes, TADs initial post was badly worded - but the chances are he had just come off radar and was still seething. The responses by the likes of minigundiplomat (up to his usual standard) and jackonicko (who tries to claim that TAD can't be a journalist because of his grammar or spelling - that's surely a joke in itself) are completely pointless and totally unhelpful.

As for claiming that PPRuNe Radars reply was not impartial - you need to re-read it... he was stating facts. Maybe there is a need for better interaction between Aberdeen and the fast jet community - it certainly seems that way reading this thread.

Your comment that TADs initial post was counter productive in flight safety and this type of incident is probably as far from the truth as it could be.
Yes a lot of the mil guys on here bit back hard because of TADs initial attitude, but I bet you every one of them who consider themselves as professionals and take pride in their work would have made a little mental note to themselves about making sure they were not the next one to make the same mistake.

Just a few thoughts from ex mil Observor, now civvy ATCO.

Oh and Jackonicko, I would say that journalism lies well below Civil ATC in anyones first choice for a career... and on a comparison of general professional standards, it certainly falls way below :ok:

Ouch, that hit the spot me thinks, I'm of to my box now!!

And it is no where near and class D - luckily:cool: