Too Close for comfort - 115 metres?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Few of things to add:
Bright-Ling: Any transponder return would conflict with the wingman and the Separation Monitoring Function would be reporting multiple airproxes between the two.
The system of only one of a formation flight transponding works in general if everyone keeps to the rules (i.e. not 1000 feet lower!), but there are the odd mishaps, like this one and the one a couple of years back when a Russian tanker and chicks were crossing close to the same area but the chicjs were 500 or so feet lower than the tanker and a civil airliner underneath got a bit of a fright.
I also heard it was the base commander at Lakenheath and he was back in the good ol' USofA before the tailpipe of his jet had cooled down!
I heard that they were both IMC at the time and the Britannia crew SAW the F15 in cloud as he went past the windscreen!!
The problem lies with the military pilot's perception of separation versus the civil one. We ATCOs need 5 miles or 1000 feet (3 miles in the TMA) but some mil pilots seem to think that provide they don't hit the other bloke it's OK. I was witness to another incident when military traffic was coordinated to remain clear of a civil airliner (on an Upper Air Route) but the crew took that to mean going 1 mile behind at the same level. Neither the TCAS or the SMF agreed that this was a good idea!!
The worry is of course that the punters don't know this and have absolute trust in the system to protect them..
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Bright-Ling: Any transponder return would conflict with the wingman and the Separation Monitoring Function would be reporting multiple airproxes between the two.
The system of only one of a formation flight transponding works in general if everyone keeps to the rules (i.e. not 1000 feet lower!), but there are the odd mishaps, like this one and the one a couple of years back when a Russian tanker and chicks were crossing close to the same area but the chicjs were 500 or so feet lower than the tanker and a civil airliner underneath got a bit of a fright.
I also heard it was the base commander at Lakenheath and he was back in the good ol' USofA before the tailpipe of his jet had cooled down!
I heard that they were both IMC at the time and the Britannia crew SAW the F15 in cloud as he went past the windscreen!!
The problem lies with the military pilot's perception of separation versus the civil one. We ATCOs need 5 miles or 1000 feet (3 miles in the TMA) but some mil pilots seem to think that provide they don't hit the other bloke it's OK. I was witness to another incident when military traffic was coordinated to remain clear of a civil airliner (on an Upper Air Route) but the crew took that to mean going 1 mile behind at the same level. Neither the TCAS or the SMF agreed that this was a good idea!!
The worry is of course that the punters don't know this and have absolute trust in the system to protect them..
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Only a few sweeping generalisations on this thread then! To dispel a few myths:
1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with losing sight of your wingman - indeed there are situations where the last you saw of your wingman was on the runway before a stream take-off. There are 2 main methods of staying as a constituted pair - procedural where you take a nominal time separation, say 30 secs from your buddy with perhaps an air-to-air TACAN lock for range; or a radar trail. Normally, if there is scope for a height split then one is taken and 2 separate squawks are allocated. However, in certain circumstances, a height split cannot be given (say in a RVC like the Daventry at FL100)and so the radar trail may be co-alt. Now, in this case, there seems to have been some sort of breakdown in communication and thankfully no-one was hurt and we can all learn from the experience.
2. The perception about required separation minima are, I think you will find, exactly the same for mil and civvies. Perhaps if you were aware of the lengths the military go to to avoid coming into contact with our civilian bretheren unnecessarily, then you could dismount from that particularly tall horse that you've found yourself on.
Ladies and Gentlemen, useless mud slanging gets us nowhere and whilst I agree that the USAF may have been at fault in this particular case, there was a small chain of events that could have been broken by a number of people. For individuals to make sweeping statements and generalise about things they may have little in depth knowledge of is disappointing.
Rather than the "hang the guilty barsteward" mentality, we should be saying "how can we avoid this in the future?" - which I believe is being done by the relevant authorities as we speak.
[This message has been edited by The Scarlet Pimpernel (edited 12 May 2001).]
1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with losing sight of your wingman - indeed there are situations where the last you saw of your wingman was on the runway before a stream take-off. There are 2 main methods of staying as a constituted pair - procedural where you take a nominal time separation, say 30 secs from your buddy with perhaps an air-to-air TACAN lock for range; or a radar trail. Normally, if there is scope for a height split then one is taken and 2 separate squawks are allocated. However, in certain circumstances, a height split cannot be given (say in a RVC like the Daventry at FL100)and so the radar trail may be co-alt. Now, in this case, there seems to have been some sort of breakdown in communication and thankfully no-one was hurt and we can all learn from the experience.
2. The perception about required separation minima are, I think you will find, exactly the same for mil and civvies. Perhaps if you were aware of the lengths the military go to to avoid coming into contact with our civilian bretheren unnecessarily, then you could dismount from that particularly tall horse that you've found yourself on.
Ladies and Gentlemen, useless mud slanging gets us nowhere and whilst I agree that the USAF may have been at fault in this particular case, there was a small chain of events that could have been broken by a number of people. For individuals to make sweeping statements and generalise about things they may have little in depth knowledge of is disappointing.
Rather than the "hang the guilty barsteward" mentality, we should be saying "how can we avoid this in the future?" - which I believe is being done by the relevant authorities as we speak.
[This message has been edited by The Scarlet Pimpernel (edited 12 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
S.P.: The only reason you recognise a tall horse is because you seem to be on one yourself.
My comments regarding perceived separation were made through my own and colleagues' experiences on radar and also from discussions with an ex-military ATCO, so you could not call it uninformed. Please also note that I said 'SOME military pilots'. I would agree that most of the time there is no problem, but when I am controlling civil traffic on the North Sea I keep a VERY close eye on military squawks approaching or close to the civil air routes.
My aim, like any sensible person's, is of course to try to prevent it hapening again. Some exchange of opinions can help in that process. You may disagree. That's your prerogative.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
My comments regarding perceived separation were made through my own and colleagues' experiences on radar and also from discussions with an ex-military ATCO, so you could not call it uninformed. Please also note that I said 'SOME military pilots'. I would agree that most of the time there is no problem, but when I am controlling civil traffic on the North Sea I keep a VERY close eye on military squawks approaching or close to the civil air routes.
My aim, like any sensible person's, is of course to try to prevent it hapening again. Some exchange of opinions can help in that process. You may disagree. That's your prerogative.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Touchy, touchy eyeinthesky!! Rather than letting the thread degenerate into a "handbags at 20 paces" farce, I would agree that close monitoring of the North Sea is required, but including different reasons than you are suggesting. There are just as many occasions when civil traffic gets too close to military aircraft operations as opposed to the other way around!
In terms of the original thread - this incident happened several months ago and, I feel, the lessons have been taken on board - particularly by London Mil; this can only go to make our skies a safer place.
As has been demonstrated, the blame has been apportioned and individuals have been reprimanded and the system has been changed. Why, then, do people persist in airing their prejudices under the feeble mantle of "debate"??
In terms of the original thread - this incident happened several months ago and, I feel, the lessons have been taken on board - particularly by London Mil; this can only go to make our skies a safer place.
As has been demonstrated, the blame has been apportioned and individuals have been reprimanded and the system has been changed. Why, then, do people persist in airing their prejudices under the feeble mantle of "debate"??
Guest
Posts: n/a
S.P.,
I have a solution for potential conflicts like this: Ban such military exercises from coming anywhere remotely near civilian airliners. I fly through the said airspace around Daventry every single day I go to work and it is some of the most dense airspace in the world. To have a bunch of military aircraft flying around, some without transponders on, is just insane and it will result in a disaster some day. I agree that it is important that the air force train somewhere but they will just have to find somewhere a bit less congested. Nevada and Cold Lake Alberta are much more appropriate than the London TMA. Obviously they need to fly through this airspace at some point but they absolutely must have their transponders on, it is far to dangerous not too. And if that means they cannot perform their exercise, well just plain tough.
I was amazed by your comment "thankfully no-one was hurt and we can all learn from the experience.". I have to say I am just astounded. No one was hurt???? HURT!!!!!!! Wow, if those two aircraft had collided there would have been a whole lot more than hurt going on. There would have been thousands of pieces of 243 bodies spread all over the midlands with bits of aircraft killing untold others on the ground. If this had happened you can bet there would be some very serious restrictions on your military activities in the London TMA, and lets just hope they impose those restrictions now anyway to prevent this from ever happening. Because it will be as bad as Lockerbie if it ever does happen. "Thankfully no one was hurt" is something you say to your kids when they play a little too rough. In this circumstance it is just plain ignorant.
"There was a small chain of events that could have been broken by a number of people". This to me is just plain unacceptable. If this is a small chain of events than why in the world is this kind of exercise allowed to continue? We spend our entire careers trying to prevent "chains of events" from happening and in a situation like this that has been proven to be potentially disastrous, why is it allowed to come anywhere near civilian aircraft?
Lazlo
I have a solution for potential conflicts like this: Ban such military exercises from coming anywhere remotely near civilian airliners. I fly through the said airspace around Daventry every single day I go to work and it is some of the most dense airspace in the world. To have a bunch of military aircraft flying around, some without transponders on, is just insane and it will result in a disaster some day. I agree that it is important that the air force train somewhere but they will just have to find somewhere a bit less congested. Nevada and Cold Lake Alberta are much more appropriate than the London TMA. Obviously they need to fly through this airspace at some point but they absolutely must have their transponders on, it is far to dangerous not too. And if that means they cannot perform their exercise, well just plain tough.
I was amazed by your comment "thankfully no-one was hurt and we can all learn from the experience.". I have to say I am just astounded. No one was hurt???? HURT!!!!!!! Wow, if those two aircraft had collided there would have been a whole lot more than hurt going on. There would have been thousands of pieces of 243 bodies spread all over the midlands with bits of aircraft killing untold others on the ground. If this had happened you can bet there would be some very serious restrictions on your military activities in the London TMA, and lets just hope they impose those restrictions now anyway to prevent this from ever happening. Because it will be as bad as Lockerbie if it ever does happen. "Thankfully no one was hurt" is something you say to your kids when they play a little too rough. In this circumstance it is just plain ignorant.
"There was a small chain of events that could have been broken by a number of people". This to me is just plain unacceptable. If this is a small chain of events than why in the world is this kind of exercise allowed to continue? We spend our entire careers trying to prevent "chains of events" from happening and in a situation like this that has been proven to be potentially disastrous, why is it allowed to come anywhere near civilian aircraft?
Lazlo
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lazlo, old bean. The 2 aircraft in question were not conducting military operations - they were merely crossing the airways to get to their operating area. If I really have to spell it out to you, this is one of 2 ways we can get to areas where we are nowhere near civilian aircraft so we can conduct our operations - think of it more like a pedestrian crossing in the sky - if, as you claim, you frequent that piece of airspace on a regular basis then I am astounded that you aren't aware of the Daventry, Lichfield and Westcott Radar Video Corridors that are used on a daily basis by mainly military operators. The other way, of course, would be to go underneath the airways and get loads of flying complaints because of the noise....catch 22!
As for my understating the consequences of what may have happened I can only apologise for making you shocked, astounded and appalled - I just didn't want to state the bleeding obvious in a melodramatic fashion!
Listen - I don't want to appear to have all the answers, because I don't. Please bear in mind, though that measures have been put in place (that I've said before) that should prevent this from happening again - fingers crossed.
TSP
As for my understating the consequences of what may have happened I can only apologise for making you shocked, astounded and appalled - I just didn't want to state the bleeding obvious in a melodramatic fashion!
Listen - I don't want to appear to have all the answers, because I don't. Please bear in mind, though that measures have been put in place (that I've said before) that should prevent this from happening again - fingers crossed.
TSP
Guest
Posts: n/a
S.P.
What I am saying is that it is ridiculous to fly in the London TMA without a transponder on. If the reason for not turning it on is because of radar clutter (which it is according to the report) then you will just have to fly further apart and forget this radar formation bullsh*t. Having read the report, I can see that the AAIB has a similar opinion so hopefully they will put an end to this business of only the lead aircraft squawking. I have no problem with military aircraft flying through the TMA to get to a "practice area" but you've got to have a working transponder that is switched on. It is the only safe way. By the way, I have no idea what the Lichfield "video" corridor or whatever you said is - how could I? It is not on our charts. This is the problem - civilian pilots really are not aware of what military traffic is around. All I know is that there are all sorts of level restrictions around that area which points to some sort of military activity. Had no idea the extent until this incident.
Lazlo
What I am saying is that it is ridiculous to fly in the London TMA without a transponder on. If the reason for not turning it on is because of radar clutter (which it is according to the report) then you will just have to fly further apart and forget this radar formation bullsh*t. Having read the report, I can see that the AAIB has a similar opinion so hopefully they will put an end to this business of only the lead aircraft squawking. I have no problem with military aircraft flying through the TMA to get to a "practice area" but you've got to have a working transponder that is switched on. It is the only safe way. By the way, I have no idea what the Lichfield "video" corridor or whatever you said is - how could I? It is not on our charts. This is the problem - civilian pilots really are not aware of what military traffic is around. All I know is that there are all sorts of level restrictions around that area which points to some sort of military activity. Had no idea the extent until this incident.
Lazlo
Guest
Posts: n/a
To quote SP
"Only a few sweeping generalisations on this thread then! To dispel a few myths:
1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with losing sight of your wingman.... -"
Lest see what the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (CAP493) has to say...
"Flights of military aircraft operating as a formation...under IFR...may request clearance for flight within controlled airspace. In order to avoid undue delay...clearance may be granted...provided the aircraft of such formations can maintain separation from each other visually and are all able to communicate with the leader.
The identification of the leader must be shown..together with the number of aircraft in the flight...
If..aircraft of the formation are unable to maintain separation visually, the leader will inform the controlling authority"
(My highlighting)
Big Red L - this is the incident you referred to. It was in the press very soon after the incident happened so although the report is just out, we all heard about it ages ago.
"Only a few sweeping generalisations on this thread then! To dispel a few myths:
1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with losing sight of your wingman.... -"
Lest see what the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 (CAP493) has to say...
"Flights of military aircraft operating as a formation...under IFR...may request clearance for flight within controlled airspace. In order to avoid undue delay...clearance may be granted...provided the aircraft of such formations can maintain separation from each other visually and are all able to communicate with the leader.
The identification of the leader must be shown..together with the number of aircraft in the flight...
If..aircraft of the formation are unable to maintain separation visually, the leader will inform the controlling authority"
(My highlighting)
Big Red L - this is the incident you referred to. It was in the press very soon after the incident happened so although the report is just out, we all heard about it ages ago.
Guest
Posts: n/a
S.P. calls it a 'Pedestrian crossing in the sky' : Given the level of traffic in the TMA and the procedure under discussion the analogy can be taken further:
A pedestrian crossing of the M25, with no road signs to mark its place, no street lights, opened only in the dark and pedestrians must be dressed completely in black with black balaclavas. The pedestrians are supposed to cross together, but if one forgets it desn't really matter provided he's got a mobile phone to contact the others.
Does this seem a reasonable procedure? Not to me, but then fortunately I don't devise them. I just have to try to keep up to 400 people safe when some fighter jock is distracted by some other task.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
A pedestrian crossing of the M25, with no road signs to mark its place, no street lights, opened only in the dark and pedestrians must be dressed completely in black with black balaclavas. The pedestrians are supposed to cross together, but if one forgets it desn't really matter provided he's got a mobile phone to contact the others.
Does this seem a reasonable procedure? Not to me, but then fortunately I don't devise them. I just have to try to keep up to 400 people safe when some fighter jock is distracted by some other task.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
SP
Far be it for me to agree with eyeintghesky, but my experience of the military mixing it with the civies has not been a pleasant one.
We civies enforce higher standards of separation without a doubt.
Why do the military allow 500ft separation in control zones using the same equipment as us civies?
I have experienced many difficult situations with fast jets doing over 350kts in the London TMA (not safe!), and one particularly nasty one where a pair a of Jags outbound from a SE airshow climbed straight to 5000 despite being told told to stay below 2400, getting rather close to a 757 inbound on the ILS to a another busy SE airfield.
The leader of this pair then said on the telephone afterwards that he did not take the avoiding action turn given because his wingman had just gone into cloud.
Now us civies understand (and support) the importance of the military, but the two just do not mix.
Have you spoke to any controllers from the NE recently?
Far be it for me to agree with eyeintghesky, but my experience of the military mixing it with the civies has not been a pleasant one.
We civies enforce higher standards of separation without a doubt.
Why do the military allow 500ft separation in control zones using the same equipment as us civies?
I have experienced many difficult situations with fast jets doing over 350kts in the London TMA (not safe!), and one particularly nasty one where a pair a of Jags outbound from a SE airshow climbed straight to 5000 despite being told told to stay below 2400, getting rather close to a 757 inbound on the ILS to a another busy SE airfield.
The leader of this pair then said on the telephone afterwards that he did not take the avoiding action turn given because his wingman had just gone into cloud.
Now us civies understand (and support) the importance of the military, but the two just do not mix.
Have you spoke to any controllers from the NE recently?
