The Wash AIAA

[FlyingForFun]

I noticed the following NOTAM is currently active:

EGTT
OTH : FROM 03/06/13 11:52 TO PERM B1275/03
E)MILITARY EXERCISE AND TRAINING AREAS
THE WASH AREA AIAA COLUMN 2 CHANGED TO READ:-
PILOTS ARE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED TO AVOID THE AREA, IF THIS IS NOT
POSSIBLE A LARS (RAS OR RIS) SHOULD BE REQUESTED FM:
MARHAM ATC ON 124.150MHZ
CONINGSBY ATC ON 120.800MHZ
WADDINGTON ATC ON 127.350MHZ
UK AIP ENR 5-2-2 (20 MAR 03) AMENDED

The first question I had was "column 2" of what? But then I found the relevant part of the AIP and that became clear. A quick look through other AIAAs shows that many of them (although none that I've ever flown through) contain a similar "strong recommendations".

I always thought that flying in an AIAA is perfectly acceptable, but talking to the relevant frequency was recommended. Now I find that this is not the case. So do locals to The Wash avoid this area completely, as recommended? How about other areas with similar warnings (Kinloss/Lossiemouth, Spadeadam, Shawbury)?

I wonder how many pilots would have flown through Kinloss/Lossiemouth, Spadeadam or Shawbury without being aware of these warnings? I know I wouldn't have bothered to look them up if it weren't for this unrelated NOTAM.

FFF
-----------

[DRJAD]

Don't know any local details about the Wash AIAA, though may well want to transit it soon.

However, we at Sherburn are situated within the Vale of York AIAA, and have no problem - obviously a good lookout is (as always) esssential, and talking to the controlling authorities is advisable (strongly), and avoiding the sfc-2000' band is also advisable. But, I've not been aware of any particular problem, and also thought that flying, with sensible precautions, in an AIAA is acceptable.

[FlyingForFun]

Thanks for the reply, Drjad - good to see that your understanding was the same as mine.

Specifically with regard to the Vale of York, though, there is no equivalent recommendation to avoid the area. Column 2 for the Vale of York reads: "Pilots transitting the area are advised to maintain constant vigilance and a LARS is available from [details of Leeming and Linton]." Quite different to The Wash, as well as the three other AIAAs that I listed.

FFF
----------------

[DB6]

Interesting as I was speaking to someone last week about this. The main difference I think is that the Wash AIAA contains a couple of weapons ranges whereas the Vale of York is mainly training. The chap to whom I was speaking reckoned that weapons are sometimes released outside the boundaries of the ranges (but within the AIAA) to impact inside and it's just a matter of time before a passing C152 picks up a thousand pounder in the baggage compartment .
I stress however that this is just a rumour .

[FlyingForFun]

Very interesting, DB6. But if your rumour is true, wouldn't the area be designated as a Danger Area? I thought an AIAA specifies somewhere I can expect lots of traffic, which is not what you're saying at all.

FFF
--------------

[PFLsAgain]

Hmmm. I did a narrow route briefing, Sleap - Kemble for Sunday and it didn't pick up the notam for Shawbury, which worries me. However we fly in the Shawbury AIAA all the time - can't do anything else since Sleap's slap bang in the middle of it. My understanding was that it was perfectly fine so long as you kept a good look out and talked to Shawbury Zone - when they're on the air that is. We've never had a problem.

[DRJAD]

FFF,

I hadn't looked up the exact references when I posted, but thanks for the clarification. I take the point entirely.

In relation to DB6's reporting of that rumour, it is worrying that there can be such confusion over the nature of the danger or difficulty to be expected, and planned for, in an AIAA. Is this something we should be expecting the CAA or the military to clarify?

[NorthSouth]

DB6 may well be right that the strong recommendation to avoid the Wash AIAA is to do with the weapons ranges inside it. But I'd discount the idea that this is to do with the possibility of stray weapons - after all Holbeach and Wainfleet Ranges have been there for many years and have danger areas round them whose boundaries are specifically designed to keep aircraft away from any potential impact areas.

It's also notable that the Kinloss/Lossiemouth AIAA also contains Tain Range (D703) but no similar recommendation, and the Spadeadam AIAA contains D510, also no recommendation.

I'd suggest an e-mail to DAP to ask what's going on. Addresses are on the CAA web site under 'airspace'.

[stiknruda]

Do be aware that D307 may be COLD according to Waddo or Marham but there may be sappers on the ground destroying unexploded ordnance!

As I live in Norfolk, I only cut the south west corner if it is COLD and I am high (2 000' +) or COLD and I can clearly see the surface is devoid from personnel, if lower.

Stik

[tmmorris]

Not all AIAAs are associated with weapons training, anyway - the Oxford one is simply very busy with Brize, Oxford intensive training (less so now) and Benson all very active. Again, all we do here is make sure we are talking to the controlling frequency. I learnt at Welshpool where again the AIAA at Shawbury is because of intensive training, rather than weapons activity.

Tim

[Hippy]

AIAAs & DAs

Hi all, got directed here from the ATC forum.

First about flying through AIAA being 'perfectly acceptable'. If by that you mean there is no regulation preventing it then correct, however to knowingly fly through an AIAA during periods when Intense Air Activity is likely to take place without an attempt to obtain a LARS service would IMHO be very poor airmanship. If the area can be avoided with minimal inconvenience then that would probably be a good decision. Otherwise, contact one of the units listed for a LARS and keep a good look out.

The Wash AIAA is designated as such due to the prescence of two air weapons ranges, as stated. As well as the mention of holding patterns in the AIP, also be aware that some of the cuircuit patterns for the targets on the ranges can take aircraft outside the confines of the respective danger areas. In other words, don't be suprised to see fast jet aircraft whose crews attention may be partially concentrated on other tasks associated with weapons training. The idea of weapons being released outside the danger area seems un-realistic. Although I do have experience at an air to ground weapons range it was neither of those two. But even so, it just doesn't sound right.

With regards to the Wash danger areas themselves, caution should be taken in interpreting the phrase 'hot'. Danger areas are either 'active' or 'not active'. The periods when the Wash danger areas are active to ALT 23,000 are published in the AIP as well as many other sources. Note that they are also scheduled as active during daylight hours outside those times to ALT 5,000. As stated, this is for EOD purposes. Unfortunately, no crossing service can be provide when the DAs are active to ALT 5000 as there is no means of contact with the range.

stiknruda: Be carefull of cutting the corner when the danger area is active to ALT 5000 or "cold". Although flight within an active danger area is not prohibited unless stipulated by reason of bylaws made under the Military Lands Act 1892 (the Wash danger areas are not), to do so could, again, be considered very poor airmanship and/or reckless endangerment.

[NorthSouth]

Hippy:

The idea of weapons being released outside the danger area seems un-realistic.

I can't believe that the MoD would countenance aircraft releasing weapons outside a DA unless they had NOTAMed it (there are cases of live firing outside danger areas offshore; these are always NOTAMed). Nor can I believe they'd ever do this over land. They have to conform to the weapon's safety template.

[FlyingForFun]

So it sounds as if the only danger that we can expect, as long as we keep clear of the danger areas of course, are some military aircraft whose pilots are concentrating on things other than looking out. With a proper radar service, this shouldn't be a problem, but entering the area without a radar service would be stupid and dangerous. An alternative route should be available in case you can't get a radar service, and if it doesn't mess up your plans too much then it's probably worth using that alternative route in the first place (presumably because the radar controller can only keep a limited number of aircraft away from the military guys?)

Is that a fair summary?

Thanks for your help, everyone!

FFF
--------------

[stiknruda]

FFF stated: An alternative route should be available in case you can't get a radar service, and if it doesn't mess up your plans too much then it's probably worth using that alternative route in the first place...

just be aware that the last couple of occasions that I have worked Waddington whilst skirting around the south of D307, they only had SSB available and as I am not squawk-enabled, I do not believe that they could "see" me.

It does pay to have a line on the chart that will keep you clear of the danger area!

There does seem to be a lack of joined up info on these D areas.

Transitting to Lydd last week, Southend (LARS) were able to affirm that the little danger area south east of Colchester was cold. On the return leg later that evening they were unable to give me any status. Navigating around it using the MkI eyeball was very straightforward but one would have thought that the rifle range would alert Southend to all periods of usage.

Your thoughts?

Hippy thank you for your wise words

Stik

[Red Four]

Southend are only a DAAIS for D136/138/138A/138B and D146.
D139 they are directly informed of it's activity, so assume it is always active (which accounts for your first reply). Different controller later on gave you the other reply. Both were correct in as far as they went.

[FJJP]

Weapons are never fired/released outside a danger area to impact within. The AIAA is there to warn all users that there is going to be intense military activity within, not necessarily following quadrantal rules - air combat and/or aeros training will present a hazard to those who wish to transit through.

It makes sense to avoid (at best) an AIAA or if you must, get a LARS service through. Mil ATC is very helpful and does not differentiate between civil and mil crews. Use sound airmanship and give yourselves the best chance of safety.

[englishal]

Briefly, my understanding of AIAA's is that you're likely to meet military jets or helos' flying fast and / or low.

Ideally you should have a RIS from the appropriate authority to protect yourself, however if you are equipped with Mode C then I understand the military pilots will be able to 'see' you even without a RIS, and the military controllers may also see you of course.

EA

[FJJP]

EA, incorrect assumptions I'm afraid. An AIAA is a geographically defined area with bottom and top parameters and you can encounter intense traffic at ANY level, not just down low.

I would also be very wary of an undying faith in technology - a pilot under training is probably working pretty well at capacity and would have little time to watch TCAS, if, indeed, the aircraft is fitted with the kit. In any case, how do you know your mode C is pushing out accurate data or actually working at all?

I would strongly recommend you go for LARS/RIS to transit an AIAA.

[englishal]

FJJP...

Roger that, I stand corrected (too used to the Yeovilton South AIAA where *most* traffic is sub-1000' level, even though it is in fact designated SFC-6000').

Agree totally on the RIS, though some places where you cannot get a RIS (Highlands of Scotland, scooting down the valleys- although not an AIAA it can surprise you to see a Tornado head on at 400 kts ) it is recommended to sqwark mode C...anything that helps really....

I wouldn't avoid an AIAA just becasue its there, but I would take all available precautions to stop myself becoming a statistic....

Cherio
EA

[Flyin'Dutch']

Thought the military had run out of money to play about.

Unless there is something particular going on as per the illustrated Notam, there is no particular reason to avoid them although it makes sense to get a LARS service if you can.

FD