MATZ Penetrations - A Plea!
Guest
Posts: n/a
gasax:
I'm genuinely intrigued as to what has caused your little outburst. As I've mentioned a fair bit before, I have my finger in many aviation pies, and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of.
Yes, the military are not bound by the civil speed limit for Class G airspace, and yes, the 500ft rule does not apply to us. We are, however, subject to very very stringent rules imposed on us by all levels in the chain of command.
I therefore take a wee bit of offence to your apparent allegation. Have you actually got any evidence to support your theory? I also wonder what you mean when you refer to European Air Forces. True, a much larger percentage of the UK is included in the UK Low Flying System than some other countries, but the UKLFS is amongst the most tightly regulated aspects of military flying. Of interest in this particular example is that there are many places in the UKLFS where it is mandatory to call a nearby airfield to advise them of your presence - the basic level of airmanship I would have liked to have seen from the glider pilot that caused me to start this thread is mandated on us.
I don't want to get into a cockfight here, I am both "us" and "them", but really would like to discuss what has rattled your cage and made you feel the way you do, in as grown-up a manner as possible, and perhaps even alay your fears that we are a bunch of hooligans wasting taxpayers money. I have the great privilege to work with deeply professional aviators. Whilst they may be lucky enough to enjoy what they get paid to do, the rules are rigidly applied right from the outset of training.
Maybe you should visit a squadron and experience this professionalism and regulation first hand? While I make no guarantees, do please let me know if so.
I'm genuinely intrigued as to what has caused your little outburst. As I've mentioned a fair bit before, I have my finger in many aviation pies, and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of.
Yes, the military are not bound by the civil speed limit for Class G airspace, and yes, the 500ft rule does not apply to us. We are, however, subject to very very stringent rules imposed on us by all levels in the chain of command.
I therefore take a wee bit of offence to your apparent allegation. Have you actually got any evidence to support your theory? I also wonder what you mean when you refer to European Air Forces. True, a much larger percentage of the UK is included in the UK Low Flying System than some other countries, but the UKLFS is amongst the most tightly regulated aspects of military flying. Of interest in this particular example is that there are many places in the UKLFS where it is mandatory to call a nearby airfield to advise them of your presence - the basic level of airmanship I would have liked to have seen from the glider pilot that caused me to start this thread is mandated on us.
I don't want to get into a cockfight here, I am both "us" and "them", but really would like to discuss what has rattled your cage and made you feel the way you do, in as grown-up a manner as possible, and perhaps even alay your fears that we are a bunch of hooligans wasting taxpayers money. I have the great privilege to work with deeply professional aviators. Whilst they may be lucky enough to enjoy what they get paid to do, the rules are rigidly applied right from the outset of training.
Maybe you should visit a squadron and experience this professionalism and regulation first hand? While I make no guarantees, do please let me know if so.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fournicator
I would like to say that I appreciate you starting this thread, which seems to me to have an honourable intent, based on flight safety.
Without wishing to denigrate glider pilots in general, some do appear to have superior stick skills and inferior judgment.
And it has always seemed ludicrous that some air law is different, e.g. cloud flying without any instrument rating and I just don't understand why they are not obliged to get an RT licence before being released on X-country flights, where RT is a positive asset at times.
A couple of years ago one glider pilot posted that if he needed to he would recover by flying a non standard circuit, without radio, because the powered traffic would have to give way to his need to land.
That did not seem to be an overly responsible attitude to me.
I would like to say that I appreciate you starting this thread, which seems to me to have an honourable intent, based on flight safety.
Without wishing to denigrate glider pilots in general, some do appear to have superior stick skills and inferior judgment.
And it has always seemed ludicrous that some air law is different, e.g. cloud flying without any instrument rating and I just don't understand why they are not obliged to get an RT licence before being released on X-country flights, where RT is a positive asset at times.
A couple of years ago one glider pilot posted that if he needed to he would recover by flying a non standard circuit, without radio, because the powered traffic would have to give way to his need to land.
That did not seem to be an overly responsible attitude to me.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Before talking about R/T training and licences, can anyone supply reasonably accurate current statistics about what proportion of the UK gliding fleet actually carry radios?
In the early '90s my personal observation was that it was a minority. Perhaps 1 in 10 training gliders - or even less - and less than half single seaters.
SD
In the early '90s my personal observation was that it was a minority. Perhaps 1 in 10 training gliders - or even less - and less than half single seaters.
SD
Guest
Posts: n/a
My personal observations would suggest that somewhere like 50% of training gliders have radios, and the vast majority of cross country machines are so equipped.
I am very conscious of offending people, but in my experience, many glider pilots are of the opinion that their's is the superior form of aviation, so yes, power pilots should get out of their way. That's probably a bit too strongly worded, but I have definately experienced something along those lines.
Many glider pilots do indeed possess superior stickmonkey abilities to their powered brethren, and indeed certain aspects of better airmanship, notably lookout, but do suffer somewhat from a distinct lack of knowledge of other aspects and areas of aviation - the "big picture", thus making them more likely to commit "crimes" of this nature. A sweeping generalisation yes, but I do think there is distinct truth in it.
(And yes, I fully realise the military aviator in me is about to be assaulted with cries of "plank from thine own eye" for the comment about thinking one's own is the superior form of aviation. Not true - I get much enjoyment out of each different sphere of aerial endeavour, but you'll have to take my word for that.)
I am very conscious of offending people, but in my experience, many glider pilots are of the opinion that their's is the superior form of aviation, so yes, power pilots should get out of their way. That's probably a bit too strongly worded, but I have definately experienced something along those lines.
Many glider pilots do indeed possess superior stickmonkey abilities to their powered brethren, and indeed certain aspects of better airmanship, notably lookout, but do suffer somewhat from a distinct lack of knowledge of other aspects and areas of aviation - the "big picture", thus making them more likely to commit "crimes" of this nature. A sweeping generalisation yes, but I do think there is distinct truth in it.
(And yes, I fully realise the military aviator in me is about to be assaulted with cries of "plank from thine own eye" for the comment about thinking one's own is the superior form of aviation. Not true - I get much enjoyment out of each different sphere of aerial endeavour, but you'll have to take my word for that.)
Last edited by Fournicator; 14th Jul 2006 at 06:36.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only negative feelings I have against military aviation is I never had the opportunity to be in military flying.
But I did get the pleasure of spending two days at RAF Kinloss and not only got a tour of the Nimrod but let two of their pilots do some hands on flying of the Cat I was delivering to the USA...
But I did get the pleasure of spending two days at RAF Kinloss and not only got a tour of the Nimrod but let two of their pilots do some hands on flying of the Cat I was delivering to the USA...
Fournicator
Now, don't take this the wrong way - I've found myself in all sorts of aircraft over the years; military, civilian, rotary, fixed wing, big, small - I'm just trying to get an accurate picture.
You said that most aircraft have transponders and 50% of gliders have radios.
I'd actually like to see statistics of how many aircraft (don't forget gliders, microlights and PFA types, they'll all scratch the paintwork if you meet them coming the other way) have radios and transponders fitted.
In fact you can take all the commercial aircraft out of the equation due to the nature of flying they'll be doing and the slim chance that they'll be doing it in your MATZ.
I'd just like to know, that's all. If only 50% have radios and 25% have transponders then you might as well switch everything off and look out of the window.
Now, don't take this the wrong way - I've found myself in all sorts of aircraft over the years; military, civilian, rotary, fixed wing, big, small - I'm just trying to get an accurate picture.
You said that most aircraft have transponders and 50% of gliders have radios.
I'd actually like to see statistics of how many aircraft (don't forget gliders, microlights and PFA types, they'll all scratch the paintwork if you meet them coming the other way) have radios and transponders fitted.
In fact you can take all the commercial aircraft out of the equation due to the nature of flying they'll be doing and the slim chance that they'll be doing it in your MATZ.
I'd just like to know, that's all. If only 50% have radios and 25% have transponders then you might as well switch everything off and look out of the window.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by drauk
The notion that people who are flying purely for pleasure are "Pratting around" is, I would imagine, part of what makes some people feel there is an "us" and "them".
Guest
Posts: n/a
JAFO:
It's a fair point. I actually believe that far more than 50% of the gliders likely to infringe would be equipped with radios. The 50% I mentioned referred to 2-seat training machines, which commonly (although not exclusively) operate relatively locally to their site. Single seat cross country aircraft on the other hand, are pretty much all equipped with radios so they can chat to their brethren about soaring conditions.
I would definately be interested to see some statistics about radio and transponder fitting in other types of aircraft though - anyone got any ideas?
It's a fair point. I actually believe that far more than 50% of the gliders likely to infringe would be equipped with radios. The 50% I mentioned referred to 2-seat training machines, which commonly (although not exclusively) operate relatively locally to their site. Single seat cross country aircraft on the other hand, are pretty much all equipped with radios so they can chat to their brethren about soaring conditions.
I would definately be interested to see some statistics about radio and transponder fitting in other types of aircraft though - anyone got any ideas?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I can drag you back to a bit of logic.
The use of transponders or radio is not mandated in a MATZ. Whether or not you agree with that decision should make no differrence to your own behaviour. If you want to carry on arguing that it is somehow right to plan to descend through cloud in the knowledge that your own primary radar is turned off you won't get my support.
In your scenario you have a glider operating in accordance with the rules of the air, VFR, clear of cloud and in site of the surface. You have a mil jet descending through cloud when there is no imperative to do so at a rate of descent that will give him no chance to avoid aircraft legitimately operating below it, knowing that he has no primary radar cover.
Who is being sensible here?
Purely out of curiosity, whas the primary radar off because it was under maintenance or was it because it was overheating in the hot weather?
Mike
The use of transponders or radio is not mandated in a MATZ. Whether or not you agree with that decision should make no differrence to your own behaviour. If you want to carry on arguing that it is somehow right to plan to descend through cloud in the knowledge that your own primary radar is turned off you won't get my support.
In your scenario you have a glider operating in accordance with the rules of the air, VFR, clear of cloud and in site of the surface. You have a mil jet descending through cloud when there is no imperative to do so at a rate of descent that will give him no chance to avoid aircraft legitimately operating below it, knowing that he has no primary radar cover.
Who is being sensible here?
Purely out of curiosity, whas the primary radar off because it was under maintenance or was it because it was overheating in the hot weather?
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fournicator
"and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of."
I'm sure it is - but to different sets of rules and using methods and approaches that are incompatible and/or different to civil aviation.
Look at the recent Operation Neptune Warrior - high energy maneourving, flive firing in the open FIR - without even a TRA, and in an area covering northern England and all of Scotland. As a NOTAM completely useless but what sort of risk assessment process states that live firing is OK in the open FIR? The answer - none, it's simply 'what we have always done'.
And that is the rub, with my working head on the saddest response I get during investigations is 'we've always done it that way', 'I cann't see how it is dangerous' etc etc.
My local strip has had a near 15 year history of being 'beaten up' and is still used as a turning point by low flying military aircraft, it sits in a valley which is 'convienent'. We've had all the usual RAF PR rubbish but the 'heavily regulated' military flying system will not acknowledge that flying through the circuit of an active airstrip (30 plus machines) is a stupid idea.
So every year we have a couple of close calls. Why? Because the RAF appear to be afraid that if they do start to take notice of the way they operate they'll end up like the Germans and Scandinavians - operating in known traffic environments only. Which would be very sensible - but of course not the way they have always done it.
I don't have a problem with low flying as such because if they say its necessary it may well be. But low flying through circuits must put them in conflict with other traffic. Similarly high energy manoeurving - in a known traffic environment it is a safe activity, in close proximity to advisory or routine scheduled traffic - it is not.
If the military are happy to state 'pilots will be unable to comply with the rules of the air' then they must take measures to ensure the safety of rest of us - at the moment that consists purely of a warning to stay away from 50% of the UK landmass when there is a major exercise on. That is very much like the sign in some carparks 'the management accept no liability'. In law the sign is meaningless, in many aspects the present military flying arrangements are pretty similar
"and the military flying I do is without doubt the most heavily regulated and enforced sphere of aviation I know of."
I'm sure it is - but to different sets of rules and using methods and approaches that are incompatible and/or different to civil aviation.
Look at the recent Operation Neptune Warrior - high energy maneourving, flive firing in the open FIR - without even a TRA, and in an area covering northern England and all of Scotland. As a NOTAM completely useless but what sort of risk assessment process states that live firing is OK in the open FIR? The answer - none, it's simply 'what we have always done'.
And that is the rub, with my working head on the saddest response I get during investigations is 'we've always done it that way', 'I cann't see how it is dangerous' etc etc.
My local strip has had a near 15 year history of being 'beaten up' and is still used as a turning point by low flying military aircraft, it sits in a valley which is 'convienent'. We've had all the usual RAF PR rubbish but the 'heavily regulated' military flying system will not acknowledge that flying through the circuit of an active airstrip (30 plus machines) is a stupid idea.
So every year we have a couple of close calls. Why? Because the RAF appear to be afraid that if they do start to take notice of the way they operate they'll end up like the Germans and Scandinavians - operating in known traffic environments only. Which would be very sensible - but of course not the way they have always done it.
I don't have a problem with low flying as such because if they say its necessary it may well be. But low flying through circuits must put them in conflict with other traffic. Similarly high energy manoeurving - in a known traffic environment it is a safe activity, in close proximity to advisory or routine scheduled traffic - it is not.
If the military are happy to state 'pilots will be unable to comply with the rules of the air' then they must take measures to ensure the safety of rest of us - at the moment that consists purely of a warning to stay away from 50% of the UK landmass when there is a major exercise on. That is very much like the sign in some carparks 'the management accept no liability'. In law the sign is meaningless, in many aspects the present military flying arrangements are pretty similar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fournicator - you have already perceived that your military flying and that of your military colleagues gives rise to a number of vexed questions when you "interact" with GA and CAT. Some I think are fair questions and perhaps you would do PPRUNERS the honour of answering those that you can. Maybe a new thread would be appropriate but lets start here.
Q1 Why are not military aircraft MANDATED to squawk and with Mode C?
Q2 Why with all the planning etc at your disposal do you still bust ATZs?
I will wait questions from others.
Not having a go at the mil just trying to understand so that we can all be in a safer environment.
Thanks in advance
Q1 Why are not military aircraft MANDATED to squawk and with Mode C?
Q2 Why with all the planning etc at your disposal do you still bust ATZs?
I will wait questions from others.
Not having a go at the mil just trying to understand so that we can all be in a safer environment.
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH -
1. They generally do, but
a) not all mil a/c have mode C fitted and
b) not all transponders are infallible & you generally won't discover yours is bust untill a nice
controller tells you!
2. The Two-Winged Master-Race is a myth. Fact is they are only human too, and can make
mistakes, errors & be generally as stupid as you or me!
Case in point - I was working SSR-only when a cab called up for radar pickup & vectors for PAR. He knew & I knew his transponder was u/s, cos I'd told him so about an hour previous. I reminded him I was SSR-only, upon which he asked me to ident him with turns. "you're not quite getting the point, are you?" I said.
1. They generally do, but
a) not all mil a/c have mode C fitted and
b) not all transponders are infallible & you generally won't discover yours is bust untill a nice
controller tells you!
2. The Two-Winged Master-Race is a myth. Fact is they are only human too, and can make
mistakes, errors & be generally as stupid as you or me!
Case in point - I was working SSR-only when a cab called up for radar pickup & vectors for PAR. He knew & I knew his transponder was u/s, cos I'd told him so about an hour previous. I reminded him I was SSR-only, upon which he asked me to ident him with turns. "you're not quite getting the point, are you?" I said.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the weather as you describe at the beginning of this thread and with your radar not srviceable I would suggest Fournicator that it was not a good day to do PFLs, glider or not!
Always a good idea not to make an emergency out of a practice.
Always a good idea not to make an emergency out of a practice.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aluminium persuader - Thanks but I asked why they were not MANDATED so to do. I accept there may be reasons but I sure would like to know what they are. You see "generally" is really not an answer except it gets some "off the hook" if there is a loop hole
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dorset
Age: 49
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a good reason for the CAA to insist on Mode S.... For christ sakes guys why not make it easier for them (CAA) by potentially causing near misses with mil a/c?? Just turn the radio on and speak (or at least listen!!) - it's not that hard (and may save your life one day!)
Just reading the latest edition of "Loop", there's a mention of somebody in a powered hang-glider (a doodlebug, not a microlight) asking for, and getting a zone transit at Southampton.
If they can do that, it doesn't give a glider pilot much excuse not to talk IMHO.
G
If they can do that, it doesn't give a glider pilot much excuse not to talk IMHO.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So just let me get this straight. The military dont/wont/cant carry transponders BUT the rest of us have to spend a lot of money so that we can operate in a "known" environment. Someone's logic seems to be slipping here or are we going to restrict the mil aircraft to some far flung place with no other traffic? Of course not so why all the insistence on mode s when the fastest traffic may not use it. Is it not reasonable to expect everyone to work to the same rules?