GA Bashing From The RAF
 

Is it me, or are the GA community being treated like a bunch of monkeys by the Royal Air Force command?

BBC News - London 2012: RAF holds Olympic security exercise

It appears the only reason Typhoon will be stationed at Northolt is due to the idiots who fly light aircraft, avation enthusiasts who may blunder into the zone.

Not really fair to the 99% who arent arseholes?

Don't forget that a lot of RAF guys fly GA as well, maybe it's those he was referring to....:)

Being in charge is a tough job, especially if one knows "idiots have been reported".

I can well understand the willingness to do whatever seems reasonable, or at the least being able to illustrate having done all that could be expected to be reasonably done.

The Rupert, Mr Waterfall, is the one talking about 'bumbling' GA.

IF YOU FLY A DESK, IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN ONES CORRECT TARGETS, so lets just shoot them all down to be extra cautious.

Like to see the insurance claim............

Quite a few military aircraft infringe Controlled Airspace each year. I guess the pilots are just 'bumbling' along and need assistance to return to safe airspace ? ;)

Perhaps selective editing by the BBC and / or the RAF talking about something trivial to divert attention from serious stuff that they know?

Rest assured that there are RAF people who fly light aircraft for fun and some of them have been working hard to help light GA through this madness. 'Nuff said.

Hmmm. So multi-million pound jet fighters and helicopters with snipers in them patrolling over Londoners' heads during the Olympics are meant to reassure the public?

It's certainly a nice PR stunt but would they be that successful in the event of worst case scenarios?

All that film does is create the impression the RAF are using hugely expensive frontline aircraft to ensure a few bumbling hobbyists don't inadvertently overfly the Olympics. Little faith in the CAA education campaign then. And what about the rules of engagement for anyone who did get lost and stray into the restricted zone?

One final thought, anyone know if a GA aircraft has ever been used in a "terrorist" act anywhere in the world? Only one I can think of was the Tamil Tigers - some would argue freedom fighters - using GA to drop bombs on government troops in Sri Lanka. Clearly the thought of a 9/11 style incident doesn't bear thinking about but surely GA aircraft are highly unlikely to be used in such a fashion?

Lunchmaster

Problem is, the spooks always consider how they'd have responded to a previous incident....

So they're probably all looking up when they should perhaps be looking down?

Creating a fortress around the Olympic sites will possibly stop a direct attempt to disrupt the Games, but as has been shown before, those that would do us harm will look for a softer target.

The threat of an attack will bring almost as much chaos as the real thing so intelligence gathering is key.

The Betty Windsor Flying Club are show boating for the meedya.

150 days to go. 164 to the end:ok:

SGC

Smithy's perception on it all is that t'Government is absolutely keeking themselves that some pesky wrongdoers will try something that would spoil their self-aggrandising egofest Ollimpicks and make them look like minor pillocks. So therefore in response the entire nation's armed forces are to be deployed around a 25 mile radius centered around Ollimpick Village or whatever its called and the whole of London and the surrounding areas are completely closed and strictly prohibited for the duration of the Ollimpicks. Strictly a prohibited area both on ground and in the air for all with the exception from politicians, the armed forces, atheletes and folk daft enough to spend several hundred quid on a ticket to watch some folk run around an oval for a few minutes.

I find all the pant-pishing going on about airspace, security, transport etc. muchly amusing. One shall watch from afar with amusement as Britain's capital city grinds to a halt all because of a glorified school sports day. Tee hee hee

Add to the fact that it would be virtually impossible for a fast jet to shoot down GA aircraft anyway, due to the fact that they are too small & slow! They used to struggle to "Kill" a Hercules, they simply dropped the flaps & flew a low, slow tight turns & generally they managed to get away!:ok:

... you forgot those other truly wonderful people, the CEOs of the "Corporate Sponsors", enjoying their special traffic lanes ... :yuk:

I think that's what the FJ crews used to tell you in the debrief to make you feel better.......the real work had been done long before you started going round in circles...:E

Anyhow back to the thread:

Lunchmaster:

I can promise you some of us who will be flying in the London TMA during the Olympics, inbound to the likes of LHR, would also quite like some idea of the ROE. The radar circuit for 27 L/R, especially off the Bovingdon and Lambourne holds, takes you very close to the Olympic complex. I'd certainly like to know what the plan is if we lose comms after leaving the hold but somehow I doubt we're going to be told, so it's not just GA that's being kept in the dark.

Mmm.. The Golden Trough will be well in evidence. Looks like the Unite threat has gone down well with the BBC. Why are the bus drivers wanting Olympic pay??

Are the RAF bods on bonus also?

After experiencing the security theater that was created to deal with the "air threat" at the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, which basically closed all the airspace around Vancouver for 2 months my advice is to take up sailing/golf/soccer/hiking and leave your aircraft on the ground. The hassles will just not be worth it.

Ironically the first for real airspace infringement of the ADIZ around Vancouver in 2010 was a light aircraft approaching the downtown core unannounced. The intercepting fighters did not have any trouble identifying it, as "Transport Canada" (ie the Canadian equivalent of the CAA) was prominatly marked on the side of the aircraft :E

IIRC correctly, Air Commodore Gary Waterfall was the RAF Harrier display pilot a few years back, so I'd have hoped he'd have good experiences of GA and display flying. That said, I'm amazed at the number of times when I've been a spectator on the ground at Duxford or various military airshows and I've heard a GA pilot seeming completely oblivious of the RA(T) that is in existence, requesting permission to route through the overhead etc. Sadly, I do think there are a number of GA flyers who seem unaware of the NOTAM system. Hopefully even they wont miss the Olympic RA(T)'s etc...

On the way to his Air Commodore's desk he was a member of the Red Arrows and a Harrier display pilot.


FL

Pussy Galore's girls in "Goldfinger" used a fleet of PA28s if I remember rightly...:)

On the way to his Air Commodore's desk he was a member of the Red Arrows and a Harrier display pilot.

Well frankly he should no better then..

:confused::confused::confused:

"be no better than .... "? or "Know better"?? :}

As JOE-FBS said,I think the BBC editing is mostly to blame.

Sq Ldr Lovett was given time for two lengthy stand-alone sentences, where he stressed that interception meant identifying the aircraft, then taking appropriate action. He also pointed out the GA aircraft were at the low-risk end of the spectrum.

Waterfall was clearly answering a question. We do not know what that question was. An anonymous voice over asks a question while we watch the wobbly sniper rifle, but were they even said on the same day, let alone in the same conversation?

The BBC edited interview with Waterfall claims that there is only one "potential threat", which is is a "bumbling GA aircraft". No sane person would go on the record with that. I suspect he didn't.

Like most TV "news" this was all about exciting pictures, and nothing to do with facts.

Notwithstanding the fact that anybody with a brain will wonder about why use a Mach 2 jet to intercept little "lost" planes, the end result is rubbish for the perception of GA.

It might also be an appropriate moment to remind Sq Ldr Lovett that the RAF is hardly in a position to occupy the moral high ground when it comes to the safe operation of GA type aircraft, given the various fatal incidents of the past few years. As far as I am aware there were no fatalities in the comparable 'air experience' operations carried out by civilian flying schools over the same period, or indeed before or since.

As for the issue of editing, most official spokespeople are trained and very well versed in what, and what not, to say. Yes, they will wave the 'I was quoted out of context' flag when things blow up in their face, but in reality they know the score.

Anybody know how much this glorified two week pancake race is costing us?

I agree Re: the comments about it being a typical media piece, as usual what was probably a 15-20 minute discussion has been crammed into two sentences with only the bits that sond good kept in order to satisfy the needs of the attention-span-deficient soundbite junkies of today who demand 24-hour news.

But I also agree that, more worryingly, it paints us (i.e. General Aviation) in a very bad light and makes us and our industry out to be incompetant, unprofessional, bungling, untrustworthy fools who must be tightly controlled in order to stop any bad things happening. That's not something I take lightly at all and it's obvious that's what or Government thinks of us, but now the public will start viewing us in the same light which is not good for us nor our industry.

I just find it sad that Whitehall/Westminister will happily sacrifice anything in order to make themselves and their little sports day look good, all because they're crapping it that something happens and that would make them look bad. How sad, all this just for rubbing up the egos of some political folks... :(

The last time I saw any statistics on the subject, the military were allegedly responsible for 30% of infringements.

znww5, that's a bit below the belt. You are not comparing like with like and the accidents that you are probably thinking of could equally have occured to civil aircraft.

Sitting on both sides of the fence here I think the RAF came across very badly in the interview but I am sure that is down to selective editing. To those getting awfully defensive about talk of GA infringements, you can pretty much guarantee that there will be 'non-malicious' infringements of the olympic airspace - some GA pilots get lost, some don't read NOTAMS. The risk of a malicious infringement is very, very low, but post 911 something we have to insure against. I suspect that it would not necessarily be Typhoons intercepting low speed targets, but I should probably leave it there.

Why get so worked up about it? As I wrote on another thread recently, the UK is full of people of all denominations, just waiting to be outraged by something someone else said. And here we go again

Some of us in GA are long time served ex-military and have have done a lot more flying than even those RAF spokesman. But they are put in the spotlight, what do you expect them to say?

Anyway, last time I took part in a fighter afiliation exercise, they couldn't get us, even in good weather. But it looks like this time I'll be legislated out of the skies for the duration in any case.

P.s. Anyone else aware of the "doors open" speed limits for the Puma? :E

On a purely practical level, as Peter says, exactly how is a Typhoon supposed to "deal" with an infringement by say a C152 or R22?
Would something rotary not be able to match speeds better?

You lot should all remember that the boys in light blue are the only ones who could possibly fly an aeroplane! Us civvies couldnt possibly have the intelligence to fly an aeroplane and remain outside of CAS, as well as chatting on our CB radios. Mr Waterfall was once a Red Arrow pilot. Just you remember that! :yuk:

You'll see what happens when they let a grunt fly a helicopter?

Soldiers. Don't fly!"

And as for the Senior Service...... They should just stick to boats :ok:

Ah, maybe not.......

Air Cdr Waterfall did sound like he felt that GA pilots were little more than glorified plane spotters, an opinion delivered in a slightly patronising tone, as if PPLs carried on their hobby with the same regard as a bloke with a pair of binoculars at an airfield. Given a great number of GA pilots are going to be seriously inconvenienced by the whole Olympics airspace thing, a slightly less condescending air may have been appropriate.

And no, I don't get outraged at the drop of a hat. Well, not often . . .

Military pilots have always looked down their noses at GA, so this is no surprise to me.

Seminar
 

I was fortunate enough to be invited to a meeting held by the CAA a week or two back discussing how GA could be helped throughout this upcoming period.

Whilst most of the attendees were of a civil nature, there were a couple or three RAF ATCO's/SATCO's there who were very aware of the capabilities of GA pilots and were in no way condescending in their tone towards GA. Quite the opposite.

They seemed to be making all the right noises and putting very constructive suggestions which I think you will find will help.

Yes, rotary should be able to slow down enough...... :E

Other assets will be available.

But then you're not expected to fly at pylon level in the dark, are you?

OK, where are they putting the Rapiers? I still think "White Van Man" poses more of a threat and they aren't banning him from the area around the Stadium.

On the contrary... they are putting in restrictions on the ground as well. Mrs Duchess is pulling her hair out trying to sort her logistics for the event.

In the US many people recognize the importance of joining/funding a representative organization like AOPA.

The team at AOPA then speak to the media for GA.

"no better"-that's the Glasgow in me coming out. Typo guys, I got my A level English!

As for the poor BBC editing, he was on video and as far as I can tell he actually said it. However, it was our military that managed to ground a brand new squizillon Nuclear Sub on the sandbank at Islay recently, and the RAF with 2 typhoons through a Microlight overhead

That's encouraging DD, at least the problems are being recognised and being discussed. However I'd like to know what HMG and the CAA are going to do about the prospect of flying clubs being unable to operate and losing frightening sums of money, and the associated problems of instructors having to join the dole queue... :hmm:

P.S. Just wanted to add, let's not turn this into a Civvy vs. Mil argument...

Smithy

'You are not comparing like with like and the accidents that you are probably thinking of could equally have occured to civil aircraft.'

Indeed they could have, but the fact remains that they didn't. As I understand it the aircraft were on the civil register, were carrying non-flying passengers and operating in class G on a see-and-avoid basis - I can't see where that diverges from civilian air experience ops.

With that backdrop, it seems to me that the 'bumbling GA' attitude was singularly inappropriate. Perhaps I should also say that the intention is not to bash the RAF, but to suggest an appropriate degree of humility on the part of this particular individual in light of those facts.

The olympic airspace is quite a populated area. I don't see how shooting down a "threat" really saves anyone and I agree it is slightly absurd to use fighter jets to intercept bumbling GA aircraft. Surely this is all a very expensive placebo-type security measure that costs more than it's worth.

I do however hope an olympic terrorist gets shot in the head by a helicopter based sniper... beacause that would be sooo sooo cool! :cool:;)