Heathrow Zone Infringement

[chevvron]

Take a look at flyontrack.co.uk for an interesting radar replay of an incident caused by a zone infringer.

[BRL]

I think it is a good idea to show clips like these. I have been asking for a long time now for permission to use clips like that on here to show people what actually happens.

I have seen three real eye-openers in the past on a visit to LATCC and had a controller sitting with us explaining what was going on. It was really eye opening as I said when you see things like that and know what the brilliant controllers have to do when it happens.

I have also seen one happen for real when visiting LATCC with a few people from here. We watched silently as the aeroplane went into the Luton zone heading straight for the approach to 08. The controller was great, he was calm, he had to divert a few heavies and he still had time to explain to us what was going on as he was doing it, why he had to divert and what was going to happen next, he was always one step ahead.

I just wish some one at NATS would let me host those files/clips on here for everyone to see. They should be distributed to all flying schools and clubs to enable as many pilots as possible to see these things.

[IO540]

I would like it to be shown at a big meeting of ICAO and JAA and CAA representatives, and then somebody stands up and asks the collected regulators about what kind of navigation techniques they have in the PPL training syllabus ;)

[Fuji Abound]

I think it would have been far more interesting with sound.

(The call sign could have been bleeped out to protect the "innocent".)

[rustle]

I think it would have been far more interesting with sound.

(The call sign could have been bleeped out to protect the "innocent".)

What sound is that then?

Heathrow Director telling two aircraft to break off their approaches and turn right heading 180? :ugh:

[unfazed]

I was castigated by heathrow ATC for an alleged zone infringement, they called up and bollocked me for flying through Northolt whilst en route to Denham. The guy was very insistent that it was me and became very aggressive and threathening when I said it wasn't.

I "confessed" and put the phone down despite the fact that I had been to Blackbush via Wycombe and reading and my passenger had video of the route.

Made me realise that they don't always get the right "blip" and they sometimes do get it very wrong. If you are accused ask for the radar track as evidence and demand to see conclusive proof that the radar blip is your aircraft !

[chevvron]

I have a suspicion I was involved in this one so I can't comment!

[DickyPearse]

Interesting to see the point where the first aircraft was called off. S/he appeared past the track of the infringing aircraft and would have had greater speed. Keen to understand a controllers perspective as to why s/he was not allowed to continue the approach.

[IO540]

This video has been all over the internet. In another forum there was an ATCO (working at Heathrow I believe) who accepted the first aircraft need not have been called off, with hindsight.

I saw another emergency video at NATS which included the sound track. The audience was specifically requested to not discuss it on PPRUNE so I won't but I didn't think it was anything particularly exciting. I don't think infringing pilots would generally be on the NATS sound track; if they were it means they are in contact and they would be told to go away long before it gets serious! All you would hear would be calm instructions to transports to break off, etc.

[englishal]

too late to prevent delays to two commercials!

Shows what their concern is !

[Warped Factor]

It's easy to say in hindsight that the first a/c may not need to have been broken off but the trouble with infringements is their unpredictable nature. Did you know the infringing a/c wasn't going to turn left to appear to further close the distance at any time?

If the infringing a/c had turned left separation would have been further reduced and in these circumstances we are required to try and keep the IFR traffic 5nm away from the unknown. Separation was already less than this.

There's also the fact that it's likely the instruction to break off the approach would have been given a reasonable amount of time before you see anything happen on the radar replay. It's possible the inbound was with the tower adding further time delay whilst radar tell tower what to do and even if not large aircraft in approach configuration do not do anything very quickly.

Better to be safe than explaining your inaction at a later date.

[Warped Factor]

Shows what their concern is !

Who is "their"?

Our (ATC's) concern is nothing more than safety though there is a knock on effect in increased delay and often a greatly increased workload as you run out of airspace with traffic you didn't expect to be there having to come back around for another approach, assuming the infringer isn't hanging about.

If you know any of the PPLs who had a go in the TC sim a while ago ask them about how such incidents increase workload and ask if that's a good thing.

[Fuji Abound]

What sound is that then?

Heathrow Director telling two aircraft to break off their approaches and turn right heading 180?


See you dont go that way very often Rustle - I think you will find the break off calls would be on a different frequency to the infrnger. :D

You may well disagree, but I would have found whatever communication that took place with the pilot interesting - how quickly was he warned, how did he cope with the infringement etc. Presumably he was talking to someone or someone got him talking to Heathrow or how else did he know to break off in the way he did.

Personally, I think a rather dull replay of an infringement without sound has minimal impact, the human element is hearing how the incident unfolded.

Ho hum - each to their own I suppose.

[Warped Factor]

In the first radar replay on the FoT site, the one being discussed here, there was no ATC communication with the infringing aircraft whilst it was inside the London Zone so nothing to be heard anyway in that respect. The pilot turned right of their own accord once the error was realised.

The legal people stop us having callsigns and r/t on anything that goes outside of a NATS controlled environment. If you visit TC we can show unedited in terms of r/t, phone and radar labels replays.

[rustle]

If you know any of the PPLs who had a go in the TC sim a while ago ask them about how such incidents increase workload and ask if that's a good thing.

There was an article in FLYER about it, and someone wrote a brilliant synopsis on the FLYER forum as well IIRC.

[mm_flynn]

too late to prevent delays to two commercials!
Shows what their concern is !

While I think NATS corporate culture around cost v service may be questioned - The individual's I have met are all devoted people doing their best (very good job) with the rules they are given.

If I was cut up on final into a controlled airport and had to go around I would be annoyed and I would expect the controller to be equally annoyed I had to go around and that he now had a bunch of work to do to get me resequenced whether I was in a 747 or a 152.

I would also be a bit p**ssed if I was on the inbound flight (normally pressed for time anyhow) and spent an extra 10 minutes faffing about because someone infringed.

[englishal]

Who is "their"?
Whoever wrote the report. It was clearly on their mind at the time of writing.....

Prehaps GPS should be "mandatory" around the LTMA?

[unfazed]

Quote:
too late to prevent delays to two commercials!

Shows what their concern is !

"their" primary concern is to look after commercial transport flights in as safe a manner as possible. GA aircraft are not on the "commercial radar" unfortunately as they do not bring in the income and it is the airlines who pay for ATC.

Personally I believe that it would be SAFER if all were treated more equally as some other systems do

[Warped Factor]

Whoever wrote the report. It was clearly on their mind at the time of writing.....

What you read on the FoT web site is a narrative written by the editor of that website and is therefore only the view of FoT, not NATS.

Prehaps GPS should be "mandatory" around the LTMA?

But not before mandatory Mode A and C (or S) is introduced first, imo.

[englishal]

Personally I believe that it would be SAFER if all were treated more equally as some other systems do
I totally agree. I spent last week flying around LA, where GA is encouraged to talk to ATC ang given an equal service to CAT - well almost, commercial pressures will mean YOU will go-around not the Airbus. Even so it is no big deal to get a clearance through the LA class B airspace, while being controlled by controllers who are handling the CAT. Safer for all.

No doubt someone will harp on about "too busy", "not enough time", "too much traffic". Well if zone infringements really ARE a safety hazard, then more ATCOs should be employed, and GA traffic should be encouraged to talk to these controllers - make it madatory around London if you want ("Contact London Approach within 30nm" etc ). Had the chap in the video been talking to ATC the bust would never have happened, ATC could have given avoiding vectors which obviously would have jogged the pilots mind that he had f**ked up his navigation.

I also agree that Mode C vales should be incorporated around all major airfields, whether in CAS or not.

[zkdli]

Are you saying that everyone around the LTMA should be talking to a controller? I can't wait for all the glider/microlight pilots to complain about mandated radios :)

[Warped Factor]

I totally agree. I spent last week flying around LA, where GA is encouraged to talk to ATC ang given an equal service to CAT - well almost, commercial pressures will mean YOU will go-around not the Airbus. Even so it is no big deal to get a clearance through the LA class B airspace, while being controlled by controllers who are handling the CAT. Safer for all.
No doubt someone will harp on about "too busy", "not enough time", "too much traffic". Well if zone infringements really ARE a safety hazard, then more ATCOs should be employed, and GA traffic should be encouraged to talk to these controllers - make it madatory around London if you want ("Contact London Approach within 30nm" etc ). Had the chap in the video been talking to ATC the bust would never have happened, ATC could have given avoiding vectors which obviously would have jogged the pilots mind that he had f**ked up his navigation.
I also agree that Mode C vales should be incorporated around all major airfields, whether in CAS or not.

You were lucky enough to be flying around in an air traffic system where (currently anyway) lots of taxpayers are subsidising it for you.

Great, employ more ATCOs here and then talk to them but it always boils down to who is going to contribute towards paying the costs and GA stating that it should be anyone but them.

[englishal]

Great, employ more ATCOs here and then talk to them but it always boils down to who is going to contribute towards paying the costs and GA stating that it should be anyone but them.
Use government employed ATCOs then....i.e. military, seeing as our tax pounds go towards their salaries. You would only need 10 or so to cover the entire UK, and it would probably be a cushy posting for them for a few years, so I doub't they'd complain too much;)

[mm_flynn]

I had a quick look at the Budgets for European ATC and FAA land and the FAA cost about 1/2 the amount per IFR flight or per IFR flight mile as Europe (and the UK costs on the high end of Europe). Within that cost FAA land provides the 'free' flight following service.


A key difference in the 'Free' concept is that in the US the fuel tax is hypothecated to aviation where as it is viewed as general revenue raising not related to the activity in the UK - So the only thing that is viewed as 'paying' is a direct invoice to the end user. (I know NATS and all other ATC service providers don't get a pound from the fuel tax). In addition, WP is correct that the US government views an element of ATC and airport infrastructure as a Public Good that should be paid for through general taxation - so to that extent is subsidised.

[Warped Factor]

Not really.
We are fortunate in having a system that accommodates everybody on an equal footing. The airspace around LA is some of the busiest in the country with numerous airports all within just a few miles of each other.
I fly through the Class B on a regular basis. It all works fine and without any trouble. When you get within 30 miles of the Class B airport (LAX) you require Mode C , whether you are talking to SoCal or not. However, it is generally better to talk to them for traffic advisories.
However, if you wish, you can fly from the north into the Mode C veil over the top of Santa Monica and into the LAX Special Flight Rules Area directly over LAX at 3500 and pop out on the south side WITHOUT talking to a sole.
Try that over LHR.

If the arrival and departure routes out of LAX allow that then great, unfortunately the interaction of various routes from LHR and the other airports around it wouldn't make such a corridor an easy proposition here without a total re-design.

That said though I very rarely hear of anyone saying they're refused permission to transit the London Zone (bearing in mind its airspace classification and that much of it is a very built up area and the issues these bring with them) so it's not as if you can say that the airspace around LHR is some sort of total no-go area to GA.

Use government employed ATCOs then....i.e. military, seeing as our tax pounds go towards their salaries. You would only need 10 or so to cover the entire UK, and it would probably be a cushy posting for them for a few years, so I doub't they'd complain too much

Nice idea if you can find any spare but unfortunately civil and military in the UK work to different rule books. I can't do their job and they can't do mine. A military atco with years of experience who wants to go civil pretty much has to do the full civil training course. Daft, but there you go.

I had a quick look at the Budgets for European ATC and FAA land and the FAA cost about 1/2 the amount per IFR flight or per IFR flight mile as Europe (and the UK costs on the high end of Europe). Within that cost FAA land provides the 'free' flight following service.

No doubt there are economies of scale in the States.

The UK appears expensive in European terms but factor things such as airspace complexity in and even the airlines are starting to accept that just looking at the basic charge doesn't actually reveal the whole picture.

[Dr Eckener]

Prehaps GPS should be "mandatory" around the LTMA?
Ah yes, magic gps to keep people out of trouble:ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

"Ah yes, magic gps to keep people out of trouble"

Please, please dear God not again.

Please, please dont take the bait.

(Waits for the fun and games to commence)

[mm_flynn]

If the arrival and departure routes out of LAX allow that then great, unfortunately the interaction of various routes from LHR and the other airports around it wouldn't make such a corridor an easy proposition here without a total re-design.

While the detail of the route system is important, a key difference between NY/LA Tracon and London is that in the US the system is designed to allow lots of high density airports to launch and receive IFR traffic and still have substantial VFR capacity whereas the system in the London TMA has relatively little capacity to deal with VFR/pop up traffic.



No doubt there are economies of scale in the States.


There are several factors. The most important is probably the design and regulatory philosphies. Others are that 'everything' in the US costs less, that there is one integrated service provider (vs. the European segmentation). While London/UK should have local scale economy over the average of the US, the US certainly has scale economy over Europe. The UK shouldn't be 'complex' relative to NY/LA, although from published data I can't tell if NY/LA benefit from scale (so have a low cost per IFR flight) or are adversely impacted by complexity (so have higher than average costs)

[englishal]

Ah yes, magic gps to keep people out of trouble
Quite right. At least this chap wouldn't have busted the LTMA if he had a decent GPS ;)

Don't know if an equivalent exists in the UK
Ooh, noo, mrs.....Far to informal for the UK ;) Not enough paperwork you see.

Actually the UK has something equally as good in most parts. It is the magic "I'm VFR....oh no I'm not, I'm now IFR......oops, VFR again". Not much good for Class A and airways , but they are inaccessible to all but the "right stuff" anyway.

[Irv]

Sorry it's taken me such a long time to spot this thread - I've been in headless chicken mode for a while. A lot of work goes into making the infringement radar replays available, so thanks to the NATS people involved - everyone I've been in contact with has been very supportive since I made a formal 'request' for the replays and the infringement stats earlier in the year as an education channel of 'what really happens'.
re: the comments earlier about the first aircraft on Heathrow 09L approach being broken off 'too late' - if you watch the altitude on the first aircraft being broken off, the descent is arrested a little while BEFORE it is 'broken away' in direction. In other words, the aircraft is 'broken off' the approach by the controller arresting the descent, then LATER it is vectored off to the south as it can no longer land. The 'labelling' only happens when it is vectored off in direction, giving the false impression that it could have continued, but the approach has already been thrown away - in other words, the labelling is too late, not the controller!
I've put a new infringement replay up for Xmas - Stansted CTA, and a lack of Mode C.... see FlyOnTrack (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk) but note that you can still play the Heathrow 'bust' (the subject of this thread) by going to latest Stansted infringement 'description' and working down to the bottom of the Stansted 'bust' page, where you will find a link to the first replay, the Heathrow one.
I'm hoping to get a new radar replay for Flyontrack every few weeks.

edited to say: The latest NATS infringements stats are there too - latest are up to end of Nov 2006 - these should be updated every month, 2 - 3 weeks after month end.

[WorkingHard]

UNFAZED said "I was castigated by heathrow ATC for an alleged zone infringement, they called up and bollocked me for flying through Northolt whilst en route to Denham. The guy was very insistent that it was me and became very aggressive and threathening when I said it wasn't."
This happened to me also a while ago. Any lessons to be learnt please from the ATC amongst us? How do we respond to such enquiries?

[StraightLevel]

Irv, shurely you should be hopeing not to have a new radar replay of an infringement every few weeks:)

any one of these incidents where a commercial ac is put off an approach to their destination could result in a diversion to their alternate if they do not have sufficient fuel to reposition for another approach to their destination so in cost terms it could be a lot more than few minutes flight time.

Merry Xmas,

Straightlevel

[Cloud 99]

Just found this thread today, and feel it is worth a reply.

While many of you have made valid points about the continuity of ATC following through both VFR and IFR traffic may help smooth things through and improve safety, I feel this is not the real issue of this thread. Indeed I would almost go as far as to say, some posters may even be attempting to pass the buck-"I'll improve my safetly if....."

My own response would be to use this as a learning tool. If your flying is perfect and you have never came close to a zone bust and are always talking to the right people at the right time-excellant. For those other mortals out there, how has this affected your decisions in flight and what else has it made you think about?

Use this to improve flight safety for all. As has been said already, controllers do not HAVE to give VFR a clearence to enter a control zone-however it does help us if they do. We can only improve relations (and our use of airspace) by keeping our end of the bargain and doing things correctly. After all, if you are a contoller, given the choice do you allow a competant VFR pilot a further clearance-or one who is already pushing the limits of their clearance.

No, you do not have to talk to them, no you do not have to swqk mode c. Does it help? Well obvioulsy yes it does. Stop passing the buck and take some individual responsiblilty.

rant over,

c99

[chevvron]

Don't call Irv 'shurely'.