It was when you asked a simple question, or tried to be helpful, only to be snapped at by some ATCO that I used to get annoyed:

1. Transiting the Benson MATZ eastbound towards White Waltham, I asked for the London QNH. For obvious reasons. The response was "You should be flying on the Benson QFE!!". "7000, en route, good-day!".

2. Mil this time. Climbing up to FL100 for hi-rot spinning I advised Brize Radar that I'd be climbing from south to north, remaining above the CTR throughout. The response was "Not above FL80!". "Sorry, I will be climbing to FL100 and this was for your information. 7000, to Stud 7, good-day!".

The best ever was when I said I was RTB and would like a radar-to-visual. "Controller isn't available", I was told. "OK, I'll just fly an NDB-to-ILS and call you when visual".

"I don't think I'm allowed to let you do that".

:uhoh:

However, I'm sure things will have improved since those days....

Brize was the same 5 years ago and it and Lossie I have heard the most bitching about by service pilots.

If you do complain.

1. As quickly as posssible they will try and move to the phone so I presume there is no evidence.

2. You will then be invited to visit so they can show you how busy they are.

3. They will try and keep it in unit.

Only time anything gets done is if a SRG ATC type person gets wind of it and brings it up outside the Unit.

Bring it up on PPrune and publically broadcasting issues with a unit have been quite successful in the past though. I am really sure the SATCO of Linton is not happy at all that his bosses down in London can see his dirty washing being discussed.

Blimey Guys lets get a sense of perspective here. Surely a constructive thread would be better than a lets just slag off Mil ATC.

Yes some Mil ATCOs are guilty of over controlling... as are some civil ATCOs.

Yes we can all recite incidents where I was told not above instead of for co-ordination request not above etc etc... but then I am sure most ATCOs Mil or civil, can regurgetate tales of GA pilots dropping clangers.

I had just written the above paragraph when I scrolled down to read MJs latest post... I'll come back to that in a moment.

Maxred
It sounds like you transit this airspace fairly often, If you feel that are are not satisified with the service you are getting whilst transiting the Leeming - Linton area, give them a call next time something happens that you are not satisified with. If you need any contact numbers then PM me and I will gladly put you in touch. Its only with feedback to the supervisors that these things will improve.

MJ

You baffle me. This thread is supposedly about an incident involving a specific Mil ATC unit (Leeming I believe from the OP). You start off your initial contributions with a ":mad: them" statement and then in another post mention 5 Mil units by name and make glowing reference to their standard of service.
You then go onto the Mil AIP and how it reflects badly upon Mil ATC that we charge for it.
Your posts then turns to the Mil ATC trade as a whole and we are told by you how Mil pilots are our strongest critics closely followed by civil ATCOs who fly.
Finally we get to the conspiracy part of your grievance.

Mil AIP. ATC do not charge for its access. It belongs to the MOD, to charge for it is a policy decision by them , not the RAF.
Mil pilots attitude to Mil ATC. I am guessing my interaction with Mil aircrew is a little more in the know than yours. On the whole we have an excellent relationship..... your broadbrush statements are based on what precisely? However I completely accept there are times when they can ocassionally get messed about by ATC.
The conspiracy of Mil ATC covering up. Laughable.
Bringing it up on Pprune as the way forward. Yes its a great way of having a bitch and moan and hearing just one side of the story... will anything change as a result of it...probaly not as if you think the SATCO at Linton (I thought it was Leeming that was in the firing line) is reading the GA thread on Pprune....

I completely get Maxred's post... yours however, aside from the swearing and bits I dont actually understand what you are on about I just find a combination of mildly entertaining and ... well, rambling hearsay and factually inaccurate guff.

I am sure you will come back at me with some more pearls of wisdom.... I am standing by to be further illuminated.

No pearls of wisdom.

Carry on with your head in the sand thinking all things are sweet. And wondering why traffic won't speak to you.

My interactions with crew are all beer related when they can speak without getting a no tea and biscuits. Which they are all aware can happen if the wrong thing is said within ear shot.

I have been through a complaint against a Mil unit and it was handled as I described.

Sorry for using the wrong SATCO.

MJ

When did I ever allude to "all things are sweet"? I think I agreed that there are some less than perfect Mil ATCOs, agreed that some can at times over control and that at times Mil aircrew can get messed around by us. Head in the sand... dont think so. I am beginning to think I know where your head is and it aint in the sand.

"Traffic wont speak to you" who me? or RAF LARS units... I dont work at a LARS unit.

If you think Mil crews are backwards in coming forwards when they wish to debrief ATC for fear of no tea & biscuits as you put it. :ugh:

As for you complaint handling story, after reading the accuracy of your posts on here, almost entirely based on woffle and heresay, quite frankly I dont believe a word.

Now toddle off to the bar and have a drink with your imaginary Typhoon mates.

To others who may have read this thread, I apologise for my part in it degenerating to this level, I tried to be constructive but just ran out of patience in dealing with the aptly named Mad jock.

Moli
Most definately over and out.

Back in the 1970s, when the UK's airspace was busy with military aircraft (unlike today), during TWU training we were told "Don't talk to ATC unless you absolutely need to - every transmission will probably cost you 100 lb of fuel!". Later, at Honington, staff pilots on my Buccaneer course used to refer to ATC as the 'Flying Prevention Branch'....:uhoh:

I hope things have moved on since those days? Mind you, some civilian pilots don't exactly make things easy - "Err, err, Golf Alfa, err Bravo Charlie Delta, err, err I'm flying to Stupidtown via the ABC, DEF and GHI at FL 6000 request err, Traffic Deconfliction.......err, over".....:confused:

I presume we are talking about LARS here, the free ATS available to aircraft outside CAS? It seems to me that part of the problem is the lack of sensible phraseology to accommodate the type of mutual agreement required in the circumstance quoted.

A couple of other observations:

QFE - as a sprog, CGB used to float around on QFE and then, one day, was told that the RAF was switching to QNH. That lasted a few months until we were told to go back to QFE. At the time, rumour had it that the Canberra and Harrier fleet had whined so much about the change it was reversed. Maybe time to look at it again.

IFR procedures to airfields outside CAS. Personally, I think the is often a risky idea. Perhaps we should all be supportive of all these MATZ (along with places like Coventry) being redesignated Class D? Alternatively, a bit more ATC/pilot "love"? :)

I wouldn't have a problem with class D to protect our national assets.

At least it would get rid of the being controlled in uncontrolled airspace nonsense.

And BEagles comments are still the flavour on how the crew talk.

Surely things must have improved over the last 40 or so years? Although some of the ridiculous TCIC things we were starting to hear in military RT a few years ago were particularly symptomatic of today's nanny-state yellow jacket mentality....:\

If the Military wants to operate in a known traffic environment it will require appropriate regulated airspace designed to accommodate the instrument traffic patterns of individual bases. The standard MATZ dimensions do not do this. One size does not fit all, and its rules do not apply to all airspace users. Consequently the depiction of MATZs on civil charts is no more than worthless clutter. Airmanship and "love" are no substitutes for effective regulation with clear and robust procedures. Until that happens a MATZ remains an unknown traffic environment which Military ATSUs will have to tolerate.

There is no doubt that a percentage of GA pilots are apprehensive of going near or taliking to Mil units. The, at times, high staccatto approach in delivery, and unintelligble high speed talk, can be off putting. On occasion I have been left wondering what on earth the controller had not only said, but meant. I have often wondered were the RAF pilots a breed appart in that whilst coping with handling a FJ they also had to decipher the instructions coming through the headphone.

I think this has been improving,with ATC open days, an appreciation of 'other' air users, but it definately still exists.

Benson always very helpful btw.

Talkdown - that post is very valid, and may actually be at the heart of the issue.

The old "responsable for terrian seperation" stuff post cairngorms accident.

"But I always am" as a reply never went down well.

The training more than likely hasn't changed in 40 years, I think the lads said it was 6 weeks then posted to unit for on the job training. Compared to a civi which its getting on for a year with sim sessions. I am sure Milo can give us the proper numbers. Hence Mil controllers don't get any grandfather rights if they want to go civi when they leave the mob.

Everything seems to be, the pilot will do........ the pilot when instructed will.... When it should be the pilot may do... if the request is legal for them to do so or they have been requested in a polite manner and entered into an agreement.

No appreciation of the range of qualifications that civi's have and for that matter that certain aircraft types can't do certain things.

Which means you get stuff like "not below level xxxx" to VFR traffic.

I don't want to get into this as a civ flying from a mil base but surely there's always 'Unable to comply'?

Regrettably it has. Like every other aspect of RAF training, it has been progressively eroded by yes-men eager for promotion.....

At CATCS Shawbury, simulator training was once combined with 'live' training. Civil pilots under contract would flog around the sky in whichever species of trainer the RAF had just finished using - Provost T1, then Vampire T11, then Jet Provost T3 / T4. It was also a good opportunity for trainee holding pilots to sandbag in aircraft they'd never get the chance to fly otherwise. But sadly all that finished in 1989, since which time live flying training has been absent from the course. All training is now done in simulators - even 'visual' controlling.

Nevertheless, the so-called 'busy' military ATCO should visit somewhere like Wellsesbourne Mountford on a summer weekend to see how the civil world manages to cope without over controlling 'amateur' GA pilots.

Sorry said I wasn't going to respond to inaccuracies on here anymore but Beagle if you are going to quote examples please chose relevant ones, Wellesbourne Mountford is operated by FISOs, and as such they cannot issue any control instructions to ac in the air....pretty difficult to over control in those circumstances.

And if you want to see " so called busy Mil ATCO's" feel free to PM me and if you are interested i will try to arrange a visit to where I work, with a bit of factual information you might even change your mind about how busy we actually are at some units even in todays Air Force.

Yes Mil ATC utilises Sim training, even for the visual part of the course.....just like the civil world does.

A six week course.... MJ, looks like "the lads" have been feeding you more duff gen :D

Carry on guys, you really are making me chuckle.

Moli

Which was my point. Despite the large number of aircraft, pilots of varying experience operate without problem at W-M, there is NO NEED for any ATC! Pilots cope quite happily with FISO information - and no "TriStar approaching 10 miles, orbit downwind" cr@p! SEP Class aircraft VFR minima equate to what you probably know as 'Yellow' and yet they cope without any need for an approach service, although admittedly at no more than 140KIAS below 3000 ft amsl and in sight of the surface.

Having flown in the Vale back in the 1970s, I know how busy it was back then. Leeming and Linton were busy FTS aerodromes; low level training was conducted on the low level link route and in the LFAs; once below FL245 we used to descend to low level visually without needing to talk to anyone. Unlike the wretched Tucano, JP flying occupied a much larger volume of airspace thanks to the ability to operate at higher levels due to pressurisation. Dominies, Jetstreams, JPs and Bulldogs flew a vast number of sorties from Finningley. At the same time, unlike today, Lincolnshire and East Anglia were absolutely heaving with military flights. Yet we didn't even turn our transponders from S'by at RAFC Cranwell and somehow ATC managed. The level of civil GA was comparable with today - yet the only mid-air I can recall was the sad Pawnee / Phantom accident on a low level link route which led to the CANP system.

There were over 40 more military flying locations in 1968 in the UK alone. So thanks, but no thanks, I have no desire to visit Yorkshire.

I started typing but do you know what... I just can't be bothered.

Lets agree to disagree.

Safe flying,
Moli.

Maxred
I've never had a problem with military units, they have always been most helpful. The Americans at Lakenheath would fit your description, but then they seem to do their own thing anyway!

Well,apart from these two incidents, neither have I. However, there do appear to be some issues around. Just check through the posts:E

If you look at the op ,I asked for comments, because it was particular to this MATZ, and particular to the direction of travel.

The question I posed inferred - were they too busy?, were they training themselves?, were they unaware of what they were asking?, were they coherent as to my request? were they not bothered?, was it a qenuine error?

Dumping an aeroplane into alternate airspace, then relinquishing the service, was not part of the service I wished. Earlier it was inferred that perhaps I should have said 'unable to comply', but remenber I was under the squak code for the mil controller, complying to his wish, assuming all was ok, and then both of us almost at the same time realised I was in some one elses airspace, then dumped, by him, not me. Slightly inappropriate I thought.

Thats all.