Red Arrows and why they need NOTAMS
Discussion
A very interesting and enlightening read...
Red 1 said:
After the unfortunate airborne cancellation of our display at Silverstone on Sunday, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why the establishment of Restricted Area (Temporary) airspace for Red Arrows displays is required and the implications therein of its infringement. Whilst it is pleasing to see that infringements in general are decreasing, it is sad to note that they still occur.
A Red Arrows display is, by its nature, an extremely physically and mentally demanding environment for my pilots and requires 100% of their concentration. We spend 6 months of the winter period ensuring that the formation shapes, breaks, rejoins and timing deconflictions between the formation elements are practised and ingrained. Due to the high speed and high-energy manoeuvres performed during the display, the airspace required for the full show extends for a 6nm radius from display datum, from ground level to 8000ft. As the pilots have to look out for each other, they cannot look out for other ac, hence why the CAA protects this airspace.
During the display, all turns, breaks and manoeuvres are actioned on my UHF radio calls. This allows me to manoeuvre the formation to exactly where it needs to be (taking into account wind, terrain, weather, etc) and requires the complete focus and attention of all my pilots. In addition, the pilots will also be listening to an ATC agency on the VHF radio that will be providing a Traffic Service throughout the display. It is the job of the ‘Nav’ (one of the more experienced pilots but not the Leader or Synchro, who have an intensive speaking role already) to speak to, and coordinate with, the ATC agency in question whilst the display is in progress. This allows me to monitor the traffic near to the RA(T) and identify any potential infringements.
Whenever an infringement of the RA(T) occurs, it causes the workload for the Leader, the Nav and the Synchro Leader to rise exponentially. In addition to flying the show, making the correct radio calls and ensuring safe deconfliction between ourselves, we now have to mentally plot the position, track and likely position over time of the infringer. I then have to decide whether or not it is safe to continue the display. Even if there is no risk of collision at this point, the very fact that our attention is diverted away from the primary task of flying the display is a hazard in itself. If I perceive the risk to the Team, the infringer and most importantly the public, to be high, I will terminate the display. Unfortunately on Sunday, there were 10 contacts inside the RA(T) at one time, and over 20 during the promulgated period which left me with no choice but to abandon the display. This causes great disappointment to the public who have paid to be there, the organisers who have paid for the display and, of course, huge frustration to us.
The RA(T) is promulgated well in advance of our displays through the NOTAM system, whilst the airspace is agreed by AUS through the Airspace Coordination Notice (ACN). The RA(T)s are applied for through the Secretary of State for Transport and are legally defined under Civil Law. Avoidance of this airspace is mandatory outside of controlled airspace and takes precedence over any less restrictive NOTAM’d airspace.
We work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and the General Aviation communities and I have been very impressed by the work and effort that goes into educating as many people as possible about sharing our airspace safely. Prior to each display, we make a point of informing all local airfields of the NOTAM to ensure that as many airspace users as possible are aware of the restrictions. However, it is still down to individuals to check NOTAMs before they fly. In addition, I would urge gliding competition organisers to consider the likely implications of the position of the RA(T) bearing in mind prevailing weather conditions and to brief their competitors appropriately.
All pilots’ first port of call should be the NATS/AIS website http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php.htm... which has the definitive and legal restricted airspace information. You also may like to try looking at the privately run website http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/. This very useful website highlights the simple steps that any GA pilot, experienced or novice ought to take in preparing for a flight, powered or otherwise. Where no access to the internet is available, this information can be obtained from the AIS Information Line on tel: 0500 354802 or +44(0)20 8750 3939.
I hope that this message explains the reasons for the cancellation of our display on Sunday and highlights the dangers of infringing restricted airspace. Please help each other by passing on the flight safety message. I wish you safe and enjoyable flying for the remainder of the 2010 season.
Squadron Leader Ben Murphy
Red 1
Officer Commanding RAFAT
http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/teamnews/index.cfm?stor...A Red Arrows display is, by its nature, an extremely physically and mentally demanding environment for my pilots and requires 100% of their concentration. We spend 6 months of the winter period ensuring that the formation shapes, breaks, rejoins and timing deconflictions between the formation elements are practised and ingrained. Due to the high speed and high-energy manoeuvres performed during the display, the airspace required for the full show extends for a 6nm radius from display datum, from ground level to 8000ft. As the pilots have to look out for each other, they cannot look out for other ac, hence why the CAA protects this airspace.
During the display, all turns, breaks and manoeuvres are actioned on my UHF radio calls. This allows me to manoeuvre the formation to exactly where it needs to be (taking into account wind, terrain, weather, etc) and requires the complete focus and attention of all my pilots. In addition, the pilots will also be listening to an ATC agency on the VHF radio that will be providing a Traffic Service throughout the display. It is the job of the ‘Nav’ (one of the more experienced pilots but not the Leader or Synchro, who have an intensive speaking role already) to speak to, and coordinate with, the ATC agency in question whilst the display is in progress. This allows me to monitor the traffic near to the RA(T) and identify any potential infringements.
Whenever an infringement of the RA(T) occurs, it causes the workload for the Leader, the Nav and the Synchro Leader to rise exponentially. In addition to flying the show, making the correct radio calls and ensuring safe deconfliction between ourselves, we now have to mentally plot the position, track and likely position over time of the infringer. I then have to decide whether or not it is safe to continue the display. Even if there is no risk of collision at this point, the very fact that our attention is diverted away from the primary task of flying the display is a hazard in itself. If I perceive the risk to the Team, the infringer and most importantly the public, to be high, I will terminate the display. Unfortunately on Sunday, there were 10 contacts inside the RA(T) at one time, and over 20 during the promulgated period which left me with no choice but to abandon the display. This causes great disappointment to the public who have paid to be there, the organisers who have paid for the display and, of course, huge frustration to us.
The RA(T) is promulgated well in advance of our displays through the NOTAM system, whilst the airspace is agreed by AUS through the Airspace Coordination Notice (ACN). The RA(T)s are applied for through the Secretary of State for Transport and are legally defined under Civil Law. Avoidance of this airspace is mandatory outside of controlled airspace and takes precedence over any less restrictive NOTAM’d airspace.
We work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and the General Aviation communities and I have been very impressed by the work and effort that goes into educating as many people as possible about sharing our airspace safely. Prior to each display, we make a point of informing all local airfields of the NOTAM to ensure that as many airspace users as possible are aware of the restrictions. However, it is still down to individuals to check NOTAMs before they fly. In addition, I would urge gliding competition organisers to consider the likely implications of the position of the RA(T) bearing in mind prevailing weather conditions and to brief their competitors appropriately.
All pilots’ first port of call should be the NATS/AIS website http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php.htm... which has the definitive and legal restricted airspace information. You also may like to try looking at the privately run website http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/. This very useful website highlights the simple steps that any GA pilot, experienced or novice ought to take in preparing for a flight, powered or otherwise. Where no access to the internet is available, this information can be obtained from the AIS Information Line on tel: 0500 354802 or +44(0)20 8750 3939.
I hope that this message explains the reasons for the cancellation of our display on Sunday and highlights the dangers of infringing restricted airspace. Please help each other by passing on the flight safety message. I wish you safe and enjoyable flying for the remainder of the 2010 season.
Squadron Leader Ben Murphy
Red 1
Officer Commanding RAFAT
The event has caused all manner of bunfights on the various aviation forums. It does appear to have been a monumental judgement failure on the part of the gliding competition organisers, compounded by the transgressing competitors - a thread on the Flyer forum has a refreshingly frank description of the event by one of the 23 glider pilots who busted the RA(T) , and it doesn't make good reading for the organisers or the BGA in general.
In theory, the CAA Enforcement Branch can throw some very heavy books indeed at the pilots concerned, but hopefully a monumental fuster-cluck of this magnitude will indicate there was a more fundamental problem at work here, and lessons can be learned without resort to the courts.
In theory, the CAA Enforcement Branch can throw some very heavy books indeed at the pilots concerned, but hopefully a monumental fuster-cluck of this magnitude will indicate there was a more fundamental problem at work here, and lessons can be learned without resort to the courts.
PintOfKittens said:
eharding said:
a thread on the Flyer forum has a refreshingly frank description of the event by one of the 23 glider pilots who busted the RA(T) , and it doesn't make good reading for the organisers or the BGA in general.
Link plz? 
eharding said:
PintOfKittens said:
eharding said:
a thread on the Flyer forum has a refreshingly frank description of the event by one of the 23 glider pilots who busted the RA(T) , and it doesn't make good reading for the organisers or the BGA in general.
Link plz? Iv got nothing todo today so ...Its a shame the Red Arrows don't respect Airspace as much as they expect us to.
Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
eharding said:
PintOfKittens said:
eharding said:
a thread on the Flyer forum has a refreshingly frank description of the event by one of the 23 glider pilots who busted the RA(T) , and it doesn't make good reading for the organisers or the BGA in general.
Link plz? crisisjez said:
Its a shame the Red Arrows don't respect Airspace as much as they expect us to.
Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
Oh please!Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
Firstly if it was 10 years ago then it wasn't an AIRMISS was it? The term changed to AIRPROX in the 1990's, get your terms right!
Secondly, there is a world of difference between an AIRPROX in free airspace and a bunch of idiots bonging a piece of Temporary Restricted Airspace because they either couldn't be bothered, or didn't care to read the relevant NOTAMS, or the competition organisers failed to promulgate the information.
It seems that the GA community get their knickers in a twist about fast jet formations at 3000 ft. Yes I accept a fast jet (or formation of fast jets) can be upon you very quickly at 300-420 kts yet you fail to consider that a spamcan (while relatively difficult to see) can far easier see a formation of 9 or 10 bright red a/c - if you can't, how in the hell did you get a CAA Medical?
And who do you think can manoeuvre more easily? A single spamcan or a formation of 9 (or 10) a/c in 'close'?
I would suggest you re-learn the first thing any student should be taught in their ground briefs (and something that all Military students are taught all the way through their training). That is to say:
1. Airmanship - Look out of the bloody window!
As for:
"their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years"
Get real. If RAF pilots were found to be disregarding Air Law they'd be in the dwang and grounded PDQ!
May I respectfully suggest you take your head out of your rear end and do some bloody LOOKOUT!
Muppet.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 25th August 23:16
The Reds' transit NOTAMs invariably cite 2000 feet as the transit height, which is also the upper bound defined for the UK Military Low Flying System:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_C...
Which basically states that anywhere in the open FIR there may be low-flying fast jet traffic, and contains guidance for the GA community to avoid operating at the most prevalent heights - which is basically common sense anyway.
The fact that the Reds' proposed transit routes are made public reflects the challenges of moving a large (or more generally, two reasonably sized) formations around the place, whilst providing all of those morale-raising flypasts for village fetes, jamborees and other small public events during the transit.
So I'd argue that anyone who has an unpleasant surprise from 9 or 10 red jets either hasn't read the NOTAMs (with the caveat below), or who isn't taking on board the guidance issued in respect of the UKLFS.
The caveat being that there has been a big problem with the generation of Red Arrows transit NOTAMs, a function of the CAA Airspace Utilisation Section (AUS), which I understand is staffed by the military - for whatever reason, there have been numerous (and ongoing) cases where the NOTAMs are wildly mis-coded, meaning that the NATS Narrow Route NOTAM brief simply won't detect these NOTAMs - which isn't good enough, really. Hardly the fault of the Reds though.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_C...
Which basically states that anywhere in the open FIR there may be low-flying fast jet traffic, and contains guidance for the GA community to avoid operating at the most prevalent heights - which is basically common sense anyway.
The fact that the Reds' proposed transit routes are made public reflects the challenges of moving a large (or more generally, two reasonably sized) formations around the place, whilst providing all of those morale-raising flypasts for village fetes, jamborees and other small public events during the transit.
So I'd argue that anyone who has an unpleasant surprise from 9 or 10 red jets either hasn't read the NOTAMs (with the caveat below), or who isn't taking on board the guidance issued in respect of the UKLFS.
The caveat being that there has been a big problem with the generation of Red Arrows transit NOTAMs, a function of the CAA Airspace Utilisation Section (AUS), which I understand is staffed by the military - for whatever reason, there have been numerous (and ongoing) cases where the NOTAMs are wildly mis-coded, meaning that the NATS Narrow Route NOTAM brief simply won't detect these NOTAMs - which isn't good enough, really. Hardly the fault of the Reds though.
Edited by eharding on Wednesday 25th August 23:40
eharding said:
The Reds' transit NOTAMs invariably cite 2000 feet as the transit height, which is also the upper bound defined for the UK Military Low Flying System:
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_C...
Which basically states that anywhere in the open FIR you there may be low-flying fast jet traffic, and contains guidance for the GA community to avoid operating at the most prevalent heights - which is basically common sense anyway.
I was under the impression they transited at 3000' purely to stay out of the LFS (which as you say starts at 2000' and below). Certainly when I was transiting to airshows I stayed at 3000'+ for this very reason. However, having said that, I guess the Reds transit lower as part of their 'advertisement',http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/EG_C...
Which basically states that anywhere in the open FIR you there may be low-flying fast jet traffic, and contains guidance for the GA community to avoid operating at the most prevalent heights - which is basically common sense anyway.
eharding said:
So I'd argue that anyone who has an unpleasant surprise from 9 or 10 red jets either hasn't read the NOTAMs (with the caveat below), or who isn't taking on board the guidance issued in respect of the UKLFS.
Quite!As I said, LOOKOUT!
eharding said:
The caveat being that there has been a big problem with the generation of Red Arrows transit NOTAMs, a function of the CAA Airspace Utilisation Section (AUS), which I understand is staffed by the military - for whatever reason, there have been numerous (and ongoing) cases where the NOTAMs are wildly mis-coded, meaning that the NATS Narrow Route NOTAM brief simply won't detect these NOTAMs - which isn't good enough, really.
If that is the case then heads need to roll! That wasn't the case with the Bicester incident however, especially given the fact the Reds had contacted Bicester to re-iterate their display at Silverstone.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
crisisjez said:
Its a shame the Red Arrows don't respect Airspace as much as they expect us to.
Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
Oh please!Having had several Airmiss reports filed against them in the past for their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years (the last being some 10 years ago, I hasten to add, coincident with me no longer moonlighting as a flying instructor) I have to say......back at ya fella
Firstly if it was 10 years ago then it wasn't an AIRMISS was it? The term changed to AIRPROX in the 1990's, get your terms right!
Secondly, there is a world of difference between an AIRPROX in free airspace and a bunch of idiots bonging a piece of Temporary Restricted Airspace because they either couldn't be bothered, or didn't care to read the relevant NOTAMS, or the competition organisers failed to promulgate the information.
It seems that the GA community get their knickers in a twist about fast jet formations at 3000 ft. Yes I accept a fast jet (or formation of fast jets) can be upon you very quickly at 300-420 kts yet you fail to consider that a spamcan (while relatively difficult to see) can far easier see a formation of 9 or 10 bright red a/c - if you can't, how in the hell did you get a CAA Medical?
And who do you think can manoeuvre more easily? A single spamcan or a formation of 9 (or 10) a/c in 'close'?
I would suggest you re-learn the first thing any student should be taught in their ground briefs (and something that all Military students are taught all the way through their training). That is to say:
1. Airmanship - Look out of the bloody window!
As for:
"their complete disregard of air law whilst transiting to and from events over the years"
Get real. If RAF pilots were found to be disregarding Air Law they'd be in the dwang and grounded PDQ!
May I respectfully suggest you take your head out of your rear end and do some bloody LOOKOUT!
Muppet.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 25th August 23:16
I have spent the majority of my working life looking out, fortunately I now have TCAS as another line of defense as just looking out wasn't considered safe enough any more
I've been in this game a long, long time. It'll always be an Airmiss to me
Re The who can take the avoiding action, well lets think about that shall we? a student pilot on a first solo V the "best pilots in the world"...Hmmmm I know who my money would be on.
Also, explain to me why they HAVE to transit in "close" at low level at up to 420Kias VFR ?
Interesting response from you re this though, you are suggesting that the "spamcan" should manouvre to avoid, well AIR LAW says different....yes? Your mindset in this area is most interesting, and is mirrored by the RA spokesman in the highlighted thread. He practically admits that the Law is something he refers to rather than abides by.
As for who would see who first, I rather think that would depend on an awful lot of factors particular to the individual situation.
Lastly, I work alongside several ex RA display Pilots and have far more insight than most on this issue. Oh, and I'm not some bloody child wet behind the ears swaggering about with a couple of hundred flying hours. (I have many times more than the average Military Pilot will fly in their career) so I suggest you wind your neck in, stop with the personal insults and go and tell it to someone who cares wether its Airprox or Airmiss
Edited by crisisjez on Thursday 26th August 02:11
Edited by crisisjez on Thursday 26th August 07:54
NSXKeith said:
I don’t care what you say about military aircrew not breaking rules, I am currently serving, I know lots of SERVING pilots, I am a GA pilot and I regularly see them breaking air law, including the Reds – 2000’ my foot – I have, on a few occasions, watched them pass below my level when I was <2000'in an area miles away from their display.
I knew they would be coming as I check NOTAMS, but I’m with the previous poster – the reds especially should be whiter than white (!) and what this girl needs to do is get her head out of her own arse and realise that CURRENT pilots break the rules – FACT.
You'll need to be specific about which aspect of the ANO (such as it applies to military operations) is being broken - and cite some proven examples, rather than just ranting away.I knew they would be coming as I check NOTAMS, but I’m with the previous poster – the reds especially should be whiter than white (!) and what this girl needs to do is get her head out of her own arse and realise that CURRENT pilots break the rules – FACT.
As I've said, the standard NOTAM'd transit height is 2000ft, with the caveat that timings, height and route are approximate. My observation is that transits tend to be lower than 2000ft where appropriate. They are, after all, trying to be visible to the maximum possible audience on the ground.
The fact remains that the Silverstone RA(T) bust was entirely down to monumentally poor planning and execution by the gliding competition organisers and pilots.
mattdaniels said:
I haven't read the two NOTAMs in question - was it the case that they were right next to each other or did someone not spot that they overlapped in some way ?
NOTAMs J5881/10 and H3505/10NSXKeith said:
In terms of the RA - Flying a lot lower than the (approx) height specified in NOTAMS; and, most annoying to me, are the military aircraft who cross active A/G ATZs at circuit height without radio calls.
If the Reds are transiting at heights more in line with the core of the UKLFS GA avoid zone - at around 750-1000ft, then they're further away from the GA types. Notifying 2000ft as the transit height encourages you to stay above that. If you're stoofing about in your spamcan below that, why, exactly?A/G zone incursions are another matter entirely - do you have any references or statistics for events of this types involving the military? I'm not denying they may occur, but compared to the volume of zone busts of all types perpetrated by GA, I'd say they are a vanishing minority.
NSXKeith said:
My point was not about the reds and this incident (this is clear cut to me) but the condescending way in which the girl forced her premise that military crews simply do now breach flying regs
I think you'll find Ginetta G15 Girl's premise was that if they were found to have done so, the penalties would be severe, and by implication that it would be unlikely to be on the part members of a unit who are pretty much permanently on public view whenever they are airborne.NSXKeith said:
I’m assuming you have contact with our current military brethren that contradicts my experiences?
It's been a while, but I have been lucky enough to fly with a fair number of serving FJ crew as part of various formation events in the Yak - it may be that as these events are also attended by some of the most senior officers in the RAF - all on a purely informal basis by everyone concerned - that the more leery stories from the younger crews aren't recounted in the bar in the evenings.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff