Military/civilian Airprox Incident
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Ghost, I agree , you have nailed it, now, since the established lines of communication have obviously failed how shall we all go about setting up a suitable forum where both sides are properly represented on a , say, weekly basis.
Not a challenge, more a suggestion, but current methods are not working, it would seem?
If both military and civil were able to input their individual experiences immediately after a flight and suitably qualified personnel were able to co-ordinate and colate such information, in time for a WEEKLY meeting, then it is possible that some daylight may appear, there would be an on going line of communication and no complaint would get lost in the mire of bureaucratic mud.
So, how do we bring this about?
Not a challenge, more a suggestion, but current methods are not working, it would seem?
If both military and civil were able to input their individual experiences immediately after a flight and suitably qualified personnel were able to co-ordinate and colate such information, in time for a WEEKLY meeting, then it is possible that some daylight may appear, there would be an on going line of communication and no complaint would get lost in the mire of bureaucratic mud.
So, how do we bring this about?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
embellish
this what used to be put on flight plans by aircraft willing to be used as a target for ad aircraft to intercept. about 15 years ago a tornado intercepted a ba 757(it was under gci control by the way it wasnt the pilot having a bit of a laugh), the captain of the 757 wasnt happy at suddenly having a fighter on his port wing, so since then the practice has been stopped and the military only practice intercepts on military aircraft. as for fast jet pilots hours, well you spend 2 hours in a fighter cockpit and see what its like! and dont forget not all fighters in the uk are raf.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right canberra...and if the "others" just happen to be USAF, their actions are unpredictable at best, just as in the USA. For example....400knots low level through class B civvy airspace with no communication (to civvy ATC) and sometimes at night with no lights. Wonderful ain't it.
With all the military airspace available, one would at least expect that the FJ (and MV-22) guys would...stay there.
With all the military airspace available, one would at least expect that the FJ (and MV-22) guys would...stay there.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Ghost but it is not "tosh". Don't make the mistake of assuming that a civvy does not know what goes on in mil circles. Many civvy pilots have been there, have mates there, have worked closely with mil...
I have seen radar replays of what can only be practice intercepts of civilian aircraft. I have spoken to ATCOs who have watched two FJs formate astern of a civilian airliner and then peel off fast, overtakling as they do so. It happens. You may have never done so, nor know anyone who has. But to deny outright that it happens is tosh of the highest order and damages your other arguments.
You also mention the FJ's assumption that, if he sees the other aircraft, and can ensure separation, that is enough. It is not. Civvy pilots do not like having the sh!t scared out of their pax by suddenly seeing a fast jet peeling off. They do not like not knowing if the FJ mate has seen them or not. They do not like knowing that the civvy controller is unable to contact any mil unit responsible for the reported traffic. Mil pilots need to be aware of these - many, thanks to lack of communication, are not, and don't care, or don't think.
UK airspace is also used by many foreign mil units for training. These tend not to understand the rules here. Check the incident close to MAN not long ago. I also had a very close encounter with a Turkish F15 (I believe) which suddenly decided to climb hard right in my path, necessitating spilling a few drinks down the back.
I agree with your points regarding MATZs, or other ATZ's. Lack of professionalism by a Cessna driver does not justify breaches of the rules by anyone else. Remember that very few C152 pilots out there have any professional qualifications. Mil pilots do, and therefore have a higher burden of responsibility on their shoulders. If a Cherokee infringes a MATZ, then it is not terribly hard to "follow" the blip home and have a quiet word explaining to him what he's done, and suggest that the CFI at his club might like to ensure other PPLs know the rules.
Lastly, the latest UKAB Report makes very sobering reading for anyone in the FJ fraternity, as do the previous two reports. There is a serious problem out there, and it is getting worse, not better. It does not help to deny there is a problem, or simply to blame someone else. We need to find a solution, and the main component of that solution has to be communication - sharing information and resources.
I have seen radar replays of what can only be practice intercepts of civilian aircraft. I have spoken to ATCOs who have watched two FJs formate astern of a civilian airliner and then peel off fast, overtakling as they do so. It happens. You may have never done so, nor know anyone who has. But to deny outright that it happens is tosh of the highest order and damages your other arguments.
You also mention the FJ's assumption that, if he sees the other aircraft, and can ensure separation, that is enough. It is not. Civvy pilots do not like having the sh!t scared out of their pax by suddenly seeing a fast jet peeling off. They do not like not knowing if the FJ mate has seen them or not. They do not like knowing that the civvy controller is unable to contact any mil unit responsible for the reported traffic. Mil pilots need to be aware of these - many, thanks to lack of communication, are not, and don't care, or don't think.
UK airspace is also used by many foreign mil units for training. These tend not to understand the rules here. Check the incident close to MAN not long ago. I also had a very close encounter with a Turkish F15 (I believe) which suddenly decided to climb hard right in my path, necessitating spilling a few drinks down the back.
I agree with your points regarding MATZs, or other ATZ's. Lack of professionalism by a Cessna driver does not justify breaches of the rules by anyone else. Remember that very few C152 pilots out there have any professional qualifications. Mil pilots do, and therefore have a higher burden of responsibility on their shoulders. If a Cherokee infringes a MATZ, then it is not terribly hard to "follow" the blip home and have a quiet word explaining to him what he's done, and suggest that the CFI at his club might like to ensure other PPLs know the rules.
Lastly, the latest UKAB Report makes very sobering reading for anyone in the FJ fraternity, as do the previous two reports. There is a serious problem out there, and it is getting worse, not better. It does not help to deny there is a problem, or simply to blame someone else. We need to find a solution, and the main component of that solution has to be communication - sharing information and resources.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stable,
A question, when you were watching these radar replays was separation infringed and were the military pilots filed against or were they maintaining the separation required by law in VFR airspace. i.e, 1000' vertically. If they had maintained separation then they had employed the rules as dictated by regulation.
As I said earlier, they may have committed to an intercept and then hauled off once the target was identified. It can be very difficult to determine the identity of aircraft that are operating in close proximity even with the use of Airborne Interogators or Non Cooperative Recognition techniques. However, I do not accept your suggestion that Military aircraft, 'often' i.e. on a routine basis intentionally try to intercept civilian aircraft. That in your words, damages your other arguements, as laudable as they may be.
You might not like the regulations, however, if the military pilot is operating within those rules it is irresponsible to accuse them of unprofessionalism. They have not carried out anything 'illegal' if separation is maintained.
The most apposite statement that you came up with is:
Most Civil operators and ATC providers would love the entire overland portion of the UK FIR to be IFR airspace. That would be unacceptable to the military. I spent time working on the UK JFADT a NATS/Military discussion body looking at the future shape of UK airspace. Inevitably the ATC element were interested in solving their current tactical problems by adding 'fillets' of Class A airspace without regard to how that would effect the military or even other civil operators. They would then try to turn advisory airways into actual airways and offer airspace 250 miles or so from military Main Operating Bases as play areas. These play areas would not have been viable because of the time spent transiting, the lack of fuel on arrival and thus the extra money drawn from the tax payers purse.
The snag is that civil operators want to tie up the airspace around their airfields without offering any other airspace on a quid pro-quo basis. Until the military are offered airspace that is large enough for the kinematics of current fighter types for 'exclusive use', they will fight tooth and nail not to relinquish current VFR airspace. That is bad for both sides, military pilots really don't want to have to worry about 'strangers' drifting around the merge point as they close at 20 miles/minute. They want to carry out their tactical mission without interference from civil operators. Civil operators would prefer for the military to stay behind a red line on the map and to never meet them in the open.
Another recent development has been a trend by civil operators to reduce the cost of their operation by either flying to less fashionable airfields or even opening up new ones despite the availability of capacity at nearby fields. The shennanigans with Finningley spring to mind.
So what is the solution. Well the biggest problem is that there is not enough airspace for everyone and everyone wants to maintain their rights to use it. The CAA, NATS and the military need to get together and actually look at the problem strategically. Right now NATS just react to the demands of the aviation community irrespective of the feasibility of the proposals. The Civilians should be given the right to protected airspace around their airfields, as should the military. However, by taking a strategic view to ensure that some areas are available for military operations, it may be necessary to deny the rights of some civil operators to open airfields where ever they feel the whim. The bottom line is that we need a plan! Because of parochial concerns I am not convinced that the current bodies have the will to create one. Until this occurs from on high all that will happen is that everyone will try to put out the fires but without hiding the petrol.
Ghost
A question, when you were watching these radar replays was separation infringed and were the military pilots filed against or were they maintaining the separation required by law in VFR airspace. i.e, 1000' vertically. If they had maintained separation then they had employed the rules as dictated by regulation.
As I said earlier, they may have committed to an intercept and then hauled off once the target was identified. It can be very difficult to determine the identity of aircraft that are operating in close proximity even with the use of Airborne Interogators or Non Cooperative Recognition techniques. However, I do not accept your suggestion that Military aircraft, 'often' i.e. on a routine basis intentionally try to intercept civilian aircraft. That in your words, damages your other arguements, as laudable as they may be.
You might not like the regulations, however, if the military pilot is operating within those rules it is irresponsible to accuse them of unprofessionalism. They have not carried out anything 'illegal' if separation is maintained.
The most apposite statement that you came up with is:
There is also a very poor attitude on the part of some pilots on both sides of the mil/civil divide, insisting upon thinking of Class F/G airspace as "theirs". It is not.
The snag is that civil operators want to tie up the airspace around their airfields without offering any other airspace on a quid pro-quo basis. Until the military are offered airspace that is large enough for the kinematics of current fighter types for 'exclusive use', they will fight tooth and nail not to relinquish current VFR airspace. That is bad for both sides, military pilots really don't want to have to worry about 'strangers' drifting around the merge point as they close at 20 miles/minute. They want to carry out their tactical mission without interference from civil operators. Civil operators would prefer for the military to stay behind a red line on the map and to never meet them in the open.
Another recent development has been a trend by civil operators to reduce the cost of their operation by either flying to less fashionable airfields or even opening up new ones despite the availability of capacity at nearby fields. The shennanigans with Finningley spring to mind.
So what is the solution. Well the biggest problem is that there is not enough airspace for everyone and everyone wants to maintain their rights to use it. The CAA, NATS and the military need to get together and actually look at the problem strategically. Right now NATS just react to the demands of the aviation community irrespective of the feasibility of the proposals. The Civilians should be given the right to protected airspace around their airfields, as should the military. However, by taking a strategic view to ensure that some areas are available for military operations, it may be necessary to deny the rights of some civil operators to open airfields where ever they feel the whim. The bottom line is that we need a plan! Because of parochial concerns I am not convinced that the current bodies have the will to create one. Until this occurs from on high all that will happen is that everyone will try to put out the fires but without hiding the petrol.
Ghost
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The meaning of "often" depends, really on the context. I would call one a month, in this context, often. Would you disagree?
In the radar replays I have seen, and one or two other incidents I have discussed with one or two participants, separation was most definitely less than 1000 ft vertically and 5 miles horizontally.
Making all airspace over the UK IFR would not help anyone. Apart from anything else (skydiving, gliding, pleasure flights, etc. etc.) it would make training far too complicated for the flying schools. We would then be stuck with a major pilot shortage.
I strongly advocate a major reworking of the UK Airspace. This would not, of course, be anything like easy. But what we have at present is a system that does not adequately serve any of its users. But we need a military that can train adequately. Demand on civil air transportation are increasing and it is not satisfactory for large transport jets to have to go outside all protection of controlled airspace to reach significantly-sized regional airports.
In the meantime, we need to accept that there are some totally incompetent private pilots, that there are some unprofessional gung-ho minded FJ pilots, that there are some civil transport pilots who would serve the travelling public better by spending more time with their gardens, but also that the system needs to support all the above better than it does.
In the radar replays I have seen, and one or two other incidents I have discussed with one or two participants, separation was most definitely less than 1000 ft vertically and 5 miles horizontally.
Making all airspace over the UK IFR would not help anyone. Apart from anything else (skydiving, gliding, pleasure flights, etc. etc.) it would make training far too complicated for the flying schools. We would then be stuck with a major pilot shortage.
I strongly advocate a major reworking of the UK Airspace. This would not, of course, be anything like easy. But what we have at present is a system that does not adequately serve any of its users. But we need a military that can train adequately. Demand on civil air transportation are increasing and it is not satisfactory for large transport jets to have to go outside all protection of controlled airspace to reach significantly-sized regional airports.
In the meantime, we need to accept that there are some totally incompetent private pilots, that there are some unprofessional gung-ho minded FJ pilots, that there are some civil transport pilots who would serve the travelling public better by spending more time with their gardens, but also that the system needs to support all the above better than it does.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stable,
5 miles horizontally! So these fast jets were intercepting these aircraft in controlled airspace! Yeah, I know its easy to throw stones. 'Often' is also a tricky word because I suspect that there are considerably more airmisses between civil aircraft in Class A airspace each month than there are mil/civ in the open FIR. I really don't want to get into a stats debate, it will add no value.
I am not defending all military pilots and like you I am certain that some break the rules in just the same way as some civilian pilots couldn't even spell SOP let alone follow them. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that not all pilots are as rule bound as others. We will never be able to stop overconfident individuals from what ever persuasion from carrying out foolish acts. I do disagree with emotive terms like 'buzzing' and 'gung-ho' which are familiar terms to the tabloid journalists that call a surge on Concorde, a near death experience. The vast majority of military aviators are totally professional in carrying out an extremely demanding role.
We all agree UK airspace needs to be reworked to reduce the chances of these incidents taking place. This forum is a talking shop and I think the discussions have been valuable. As moderator why not raise your concerns to the UK FJADT via NATS or the CAA. It can't hurt.
Ghost
5 miles horizontally! So these fast jets were intercepting these aircraft in controlled airspace! Yeah, I know its easy to throw stones. 'Often' is also a tricky word because I suspect that there are considerably more airmisses between civil aircraft in Class A airspace each month than there are mil/civ in the open FIR. I really don't want to get into a stats debate, it will add no value.
I am not defending all military pilots and like you I am certain that some break the rules in just the same way as some civilian pilots couldn't even spell SOP let alone follow them. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that not all pilots are as rule bound as others. We will never be able to stop overconfident individuals from what ever persuasion from carrying out foolish acts. I do disagree with emotive terms like 'buzzing' and 'gung-ho' which are familiar terms to the tabloid journalists that call a surge on Concorde, a near death experience. The vast majority of military aviators are totally professional in carrying out an extremely demanding role.
We all agree UK airspace needs to be reworked to reduce the chances of these incidents taking place. This forum is a talking shop and I think the discussions have been valuable. As moderator why not raise your concerns to the UK FJADT via NATS or the CAA. It can't hurt.
Ghost
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of many "encounters" between military and civil aircraft both inside and outside CAS. I suspect that a lot of the trouble is that military pilots think that "If I can see it, I can miss it - what's the problem?" whilst the pax on your average Holsfortheprols flight are somewhat alarmed by seeing a Bureaufighter, Jaguar or whatever flash past at what looks like a distance of 5'6". Certainly, when a pair or more of FJ's are out playing, I am particularly nervous - if their eyes are on their mate, they aren't likely to be on me, so getting close to me worries me greatly.
I have as much right to be there as they do. But given their far greater speed and manouvrability, the onus is on them to stay WELL clear of me.
Perhaps it is time that ALL Class F and G airspace had a ruling ATCU, (e.g. Pennine for the Vale of York) and whenever anyone wants to play there they HAVE to maintain a listening watch on the relevant frequency?
I have as much right to be there as they do. But given their far greater speed and manouvrability, the onus is on them to stay WELL clear of me.
Perhaps it is time that ALL Class F and G airspace had a ruling ATCU, (e.g. Pennine for the Vale of York) and whenever anyone wants to play there they HAVE to maintain a listening watch on the relevant frequency?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghost, when I referred to the separation as being less than 5 miles I did not intend to imply that this was inside controlled airspace.
What do you call "separation"? What do you consider safe? What distance do you consider it is appropriate for military jets to maintain from civilian transports?
What do you call "separation"? What do you consider safe? What distance do you consider it is appropriate for military jets to maintain from civilian transports?
