Infringements [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

AlanM

6th Apr 2007, 07:38

Working Hard - the answer is NO.

NATS is no longer a public company providing a public service. It provides ATC around the LTMA airfields under a contract that it has to compete for. It is the airfields who pay and CAA that have let the Lack of LARS funding develop.

As for CAS, it is there to protect the paying public (maybe you and your family?) from having a midair. It is to stop the non paying (you?) PPL from hitting an airliner. I am guessing that you have never visited the LTCC ona busy day and see the system working flat out out in limited airspace to accomodate the mass increase in traffic.

Yes, more needs to be done to help PPLs around the LTMA. NO it is not NATS fault.

Here's hoping that your navving is better than your lack of understanding of the big aviation picture.

IO540

6th Apr 2007, 07:39

If you have a moving map GPS (yes, I know they are the work of the devil, owned an run by Uncle Sam etc., etc.) with an up to date data-base you really do have to be a half-wit to infringe.
If you look at an up to date map once every ten minutes as well, you need to be a quarter-wit to get into the wrong piece of sky.
Or am I missing something?

You ain't missing nuffing. But you will get a lot of stick for saying this :)

a proper ATC service to all,

There is exactly zero chance of getting this in the UK, due to the principle that everything has to be invoiced to somebody. OCAS, GA is out on its own, and has to manage. Which is not exactly difficult, with GPS etc. I have no problem flying around in Class G, with no service.

And when you need a radar service most (nice weekends like this one) you won't get it "due to controller workload".

AlanM - CAS offers no protection unless people outside it are navigating reasonably accurately. More so when it doesn't extend to the ground, when ATC assume the traffic (if not Mode C) is below it.

zkdli

6th Apr 2007, 08:13

This always gets emotive:) I have no problems with the current situation re CAS. My position is that if you are considered responsible enough to get a pilot licence, be it a PPL or ATPL, then if you get in to a situation where you are operating around CAS you are responsible enough to know to stay outside of it.
If you get it wrong, you are responsible enough to admit that it is your mistake and not NATS, CAA, or any other person.:)

The test in law is the man on the Clapham omnibus. Would the man in the street consider it reasonable that a person who is considered qualified to fly an aircraft solo away from an airfield (trained for cross country flying), find it acceptable for that person not to have the skills required to stay outside of well marked areas on the maps that the person should be using? Then when we find that this country has a problem we blame everybody else because they are not looking out for them and keeping them out.:sad:

AS a non flyer said, it is a bit like allowing people to drive because they can, but they can't keep on the correct side of the road. It's not their fault because there is no one looking after them to tell them they are on the wrong side:)

That said I know that when someone has infringed CAS they are normally mortified that it has happened. NATS has a very enlightened policy in this area and I am sure that there are a ew people who read this forum that have had contact with NATS LTCC about this.

Perhaps they would like to share there experiences?:ok:

And DD, I am not rubbing my hands, I am dreading this weekend because I know that unless something extrodinary has happened over the Winter, we will be looking at about a dozen infringments.:sad:

High Wing Drifter

6th Apr 2007, 08:14

AlanM

6th Apr 2007, 08:31

IO540
You get what you pay for with ATC nowadays fella. I don't agree to it.

When NATS were sold out by the Gov't then people were warned that in the long term GA would suffer.
If only the GA community was as chirpy then as they (the minority) are now.

How can you say CAS offers no protection?!?!?! That is a truly bonkers statement. It is only as strong as the weakest link I will agree. Which is why we have to steralise the airspace when a numpty is spending too much time getting familiar with his C150 after the winter and strays in.

And NO - it isn't going to get better EVER.

So, as NATS say that they are too busy to do ATSOCA, who else coudl help the WHOLE of the LTMA area:

Northolt could work NORTH OF HEATHROW
Biggin could work SOUTH/SOUTH EAST OF HEATHROW
Southend could be given SSR and encourage people to call them EAST OF HEATHROW
Farnborough (NATS), ALREADY do WEST/SOUTH EAST OF HEATHROW.

Oh - and if you think that having a LARS service is the great saviour, ask the 8 (yes, eight) CAS-T infringers on Thursday who called 125.25 IN the zone - 4 of which delayed the Royal Flight and screwed Blackbushe and Fairoaks up.

WorkingHard

6th Apr 2007, 08:37

AlanM – that was a bit harsh. I was of course referring to GA and not the weekend PPL who may not be one and the same but of course have the same rights and responsibilities.
If you wish to look at paying then by all means. There are huge chunks of CAS for which you pay nothing yet exclude those you do not want there. Please pay for the volume of airspace you “control” then you may have a case for talking about GA not paying.
If CAS is of such great importance to the holiday trade (please remember GA is mostly business users and movements of GA is hugely greater than CAT) then why do some carriers fly from airfields with no CAS?
BTW why do you assume I am a “mere” PPL? I fly company aircraft and have many thousands of hours which makes no difference what so ever to the points raised AND I was not castigating any individuals but the system in general.

AlanM

6th Apr 2007, 08:53

Maybe harsh. And I apologise if you are personally offended.

However, reality can be harsh at times.

I did not assume you are a PPL - maybe assuming that you fly in class G mainly (largely PPL territory) - I never even used the word "mere" which is derrogatory.

CAS does not belong to NATS!! It is delegated to NATS by the CAA, through Statutory Instruments and in a long drawn out process governed by the DAP. It is there to protect the PAYING public AROUND THE WORLD. Therefore, it is for the use of ALL.

Everyone agrees, that something must be done. But if only those on here petitioned the CAA with as much effort, you may get funding for more LARS seats.

Finally, don't take it personally - just how I see it.

chevvron

6th Apr 2007, 08:59

WorkingHard; maybe if you weren't so 'spartan' with your profile, people wouldn't make such assumptions. AlanM and I aren't afraid to let eveyone know we're controllers after all, you don't even say you're a pilot!
Anyway, how about making all present class G airspace above alt 3000ft class E airspace instead; that would mean ATC service to IFR traffic and no exclusion of VFR traffic.

WorkingHard

6th Apr 2007, 10:33

AlanM not offended and my choice of words could be better. Any suggestions, such as class g should be welcomed for consideration.

PPRuNe Radar

6th Apr 2007, 10:41

please remember GA is mostly business users and movements of GA is hugely greater than CAT

WorkingHard

Can you provide the reference which proves your statements please. I certainly don't believe that GA comprises mostly business users going about their company business. I do believe that non Civil Air Transport movements (which comprises GA, gliders, microlights, military, etc) throughout the whole of the UK outnumber Civil Air Transport movements but can't follow your implied logic that there are more GA business movements than Civil Air Transport movements. NATS alone handled over 2 million of the latter last year without including any handled solely by non NATS ATC units or those not receiving any ATC service.

You also state that Controlled Airspace is of great importance to the holiday trade, the implication being the business GA should have a higher place in the pecking order against such flights. Don't you think that many many more business men/women also make use of this airspace whilst in their business class seats than those travelling by 'business' GA throughout the UK ?? I certainly do around 10-15 return air trips per year on business and have dozens of colleagues who do the same. Most flights I make domestically seem to comprise a large proportion of business travellers so I would imagine the numbers using such services each year must be in the millions. Equalling or exceeding those number of business bums on seats would take a hell of an amount of bizjets, twin props, or other GA types flying as business GA. I don't think we have such a vast fleet operating in or into the UK.

chevvron

6th Apr 2007, 10:53

Prune Radar - why not pay a visit to Farnborough if you haven't seen large numbers of business aircraft. Friday afternoons are best/busiest.(except Good Friday of course - limited opening hours)

Whirlybird

6th Apr 2007, 11:15

I thought I was the only person who wasn't out flying on a lovely day like this. I feel better now. :)

I would have thought likely reasons for infringements were....

1) You haven't flown for a while, and are getting overloaded more easily than you realised you would.

2) The weather has changed, and while it's easy to navigate in infinite visibility, it's a lot harder when it drops to around 5 km, or you're facing into a low, early spring sun.

3) You got distracted at a bad moment - by a passenger who feels airsick, an wasp in the aircraft, another aircraft that suddenly seemed to appear out of nowhere, or something similar.

4) You're not feeling 100% well, but didn't realise this before you took off...one of those low grade viruses that you don't notice you have, till you need to give 100% of yourself, and then find you feel too fuzzyheaded to do it (it's happened to me).

5) A combination of a number of the above...probably the most likely scenario; it's rarely one thing that causes problems.

6) And finally...THE most likely.............you're human, and you made a mistake. You just don't know how, you've never done it before, and probably never will again, but you somehow got yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Right, go ahead and flame me; I won't see it for several hours now.....

High Wing Drifter

6th Apr 2007, 11:25

PPRuNe Radar,

I wouldn't be at all surprised if GA isn't too far short of 2 million movements/year. I think it is highly probable. There must be approaching 30,000 private pilots and several thousand CPLs including instructors, etc. I would guess at around 10,000 active GA aircraft. Modal personal hours are probably in the 50's and average aircraft hours must be 100+, if all our group aircraft are typical of group aircraft then 150+ hours/year per aircraft and a guess at about 1hr/sortie.

Whirly,
I thought I was the only person who wasn't out flying on a lovely day like this. I feel better now.So do I!
Right, go ahead and flame me; I won't see it for several hours now.....No need, as usual a practical appreciation of the realities is most welcome rather than the oft wrote 'Why is everybody except me and my mates an idiot' :D

PPRuNe Radar

6th Apr 2007, 12:21

But do GA business travellers exceed those business travellers who use commercial airlines ?

Farnborough has a limit of 28,000 movements a year I believe. Which (not putting Farnborough or it's ATC down) is small beer in the overall scheme of things. Many of these flights will also use Controlled Airspace at some stage of their flight and so 'enjoy' the protections it offers to their esteemed passengers. To continue the 'protection' at the arrival and departure stages would require Farnborough to submit an airspace case. I have no idea if they have done so.

The position of the CAA is that they try to balance the needs of all airspace users and their passengers. Where there are large numbers of passengers involved (at airports served by reasonable numbers of Civil Air Transport movements), then I think that the protection of the many exceeds the rights of the few and we have Controlled Airspace established. The few will sometimes include me, flying my light single, and sometimes 'business' GA who don't want to be part of the overall system and the controls put in place.

As for what we could have ..... well it probably needs to start with a clean sheet of paper and some plagiarism of the best qualities of airspace systems throughout the world. Things like ring fenced aviation taxation which would pay for everything (although the US who run such a system seem hell bent on changing to the user pays model we suffer here :( ). Redesigned airspace structures to reflect the navigational and performance capabilities of modern aircraft and traffic volumes, which might mean increased airspace in some areas, decreased in others. Mandatory Mode C veils around major airspace areas or airfields with severe penalties for any who endanger other airspace users by breaking the 'law' which would mandate it. Class E airspace above 6000' to FL195, this still permits VFR flight but offers protection to flights in IMC. A centrally provided ATC system which provides the resources to manage all the above and provide appropriate levels of service .... paid for by aviation taxation and user charges for non tax payers. It's a huge task for someone !!!

PPRuNe Radar

6th Apr 2007, 12:42

Just for info, the CAA define business aviation (which is part of GA) as non-commercial movements operated on aircraft of 2730 kgs MTWA or greater conducting business operations (e.g aircraft owned and operated by Multi-national companies). So many of the flying school, private, or group movements are seen simply as GA and not as business GA.

They define air-taxi movements as a movement by an aircraft of less than 15MTWA operating a non-scheduled service, these services are predominantly sole-use charter operations. These would be included in any Civil Air Transport numbers.

It's hard to find any overall figures since this would require the CAA to do a census of flights. Clearly that would be a logistical and practical nightmare, although I remember it has been done in the past, possibly in the early 90's. But they can confirm that 235 million passengers used UK airports in 2006 (which does not include passengers who use UK airspace but do not fly in to or out of a UK airport). The number of movements to handle these passengers was 2.4 million (again, no account taken of overflights of UK airspace). That is a huge number of people and aircraft, and it is some of these who will be most exposed when there is an infringement occurring.

NATS recognises it is a potentially huge risk to its safe operation (and the ultimate safety of airspace users), hence the high profile campaigns and proactive measures being taken with all elements of the UK aviation industry (which includes GA).

Nipper2

6th Apr 2007, 19:41

Even if we did have more LARS etc., based on today's level of radio competence, it would not make much difference.

The same people who bust the CAS now would be so busy stamping on one another's transmissions and burbling on with the wrong squawks, mixing up runway numbers with QFE, confusing north with south (I heard all this and more today) etc. etc. that all the really useful information would be missed.

In my business, we call these people muppets.... They will always exist.

IO540

6th Apr 2007, 20:17

Not every problem has a solution, and this one doesn't have one.

All the time it is permitted to navigate using such error-prone means (and I am not saying it should not be permitted) and all the time PPL training is just basic like it is, and all the time there are so many low-time pilots, people will be getting lost.

A radar service will pick up only those who are on frequency and are readily identifiable (with a transponder). One would need mandatory radio contact in Class G and I think that would be a shame. I would much rather have mandatory Mode C than mandatory radio contact.

Farnborough was very busy today - doing a great job as ever but as busy as they could handle I suspect. There is no way they would be able to handle mandatory radio in their radar area - they would need several controllers instead of one. This is another reason we don't have decent ATS for Class G - the workload would be huge and the services we do have hang in there only because many/most pilots fly non-radio or with a listening watch only. London Info need everybody to call them up like they need a hole in the head.

Mandatory radio contact exists in the IFR (airways) business and it works there because people are (generally) navigating with total accuracy and can be left alone for hundreds of miles until they need to be shoved around for a particular reason. But to eliminate CAS busts using a radar service would mean micro-managing loads of targets, many zig-zagging around like ants. It's plain silly IMHO to suggest that a radar service is a solution.

One could virtually eliminate CAS busts but it would involve a total transformation of GA practices: making everybody fly preplanned routes, no bimbling around, and everybody radio-navigating as per IFR. That's how I fly when I go somewhere for a purpose, and when I deviate from the planned route it is done with the utmost caution and with the aid of the CAA VFR chart running as a second GPS moving map. One cannot seriously suggest that everybody should be doing that, but it's probably the only way to make a dent in the problem.

If one wants to bimble around randomly OCAS, and obviously I believe the right should be preserved (remember it isn't a basic human right - a lot of Europe doesn't have it; try doing your own thing, non-radio, in say Greece) then mistakes will be made by a certain number of people. Dead reckoning is no good for random track navigation; sticking to well known local area is one way, a decent GPS is the other way but there is no way to push that one through. No normal aviation GPS is any good IMHO (not even the Garmin 496) because their airspace depictions are confusing as hell.

30 years from now, when nearly all spamcans will have huge glass panels, people will wonder what the fuss was about. However I think pilots' right will be seriously curtailed by then in other departments.

Now, all those old navigators will jump on me. Just remember that not every fresh PPL is an ex RAF 10,000hr expert sextant operator, or a special forces pilot, or somebody who knows the local area intimately.

rustle

7th Apr 2007, 09:37

There is not a single instance of a type of a/c that would least-likely be flying with GPS (e.g. old rag & tube types such as Cubs, Aeroncas and Moths) infringing CAS.

This pattern is similar in all quarterly reports, year-round and year-on-year.

It will be interesting to see if that changes after 31-March-2008 when those types will be:

A) More visible on radar
B) Squawking their altitude

chevvron

7th Apr 2007, 10:38

....and flooding my radar display with unwanted labels!

WorkingHard

7th Apr 2007, 11:37

What would you like from the ATC viewpoint then please Chevvron?

chevvron

7th Apr 2007, 12:15

Preferably a nice solid raw blip, rather than a plot extracted electronic symbol; with plot extraction you can never be sure that all aircraft are showing, whereas with proper raw radar you can. Raw radar also makes it easier to identify non-transponders using the turn method, as you see the turn immediately, whereas the processor for a plot extractor often takes several seconds to realise a target is turning, and thus often displays a new heading in consecutive 'paints' rather than giving a track history showing a constant rate of turn.

ATCO17

7th Apr 2007, 12:40

Can agree with someaspects of Chevvron's argument, however, I'm all for encouraging pilots with transponder equipped aircraft to use the bloomin' things! Especially the Mode C. It can reduce the chance of a close call or, God forbid, mid-air, with a TCAS equipped aircraft. The selection of a wrong QNH is often a cause for infringement of the TMA, together with poor situational awareness. I have also seen many CTZ infringements, spoken to the pilots in question and received an excuse that they were "A little lost"! My response is use the radio! Call SVFR, Northolt or D & D on 121.5 if unsure of position. We would rather identify an aircraft and steer it in the right direction than have to avoid it, hold departures and/or break off arrivals. It can also save a lot of paperwork!

A17

chevvron

7th Apr 2007, 13:01

Oh yes, if you've got one by all means use it; I just don't need 'compulsory' carriage of transponders by ALL aircraft causing overload of my display.

IO540

7th Apr 2007, 14:41

The "simple" types will usually have several things going for them:

1) no transponder, so a vertical CAS bust will not be detected

2) flying lower down, so less likely to get picked up on primary

3) if they are seen to bust CAS, the low level contact is likely to be intermittent so they can't be traced all the way back home

4) flying non-radio, so even less likely to be traced

5) sticking to well known local area!

whereas nobody is going to buy say a SR2x/TB20 for local bimbles.

Remember only traced aircraft will be reported in the statistics, which means basically those who are being good boys, with Mode C and are on the radio.

rustle

7th Apr 2007, 16:05

That such a/c don't show well on primary radar is not factual.

Let's back to reality.:ok:

If you can find anything in my post (currently #25 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3220782&postcount=25), this thread) that either disputes your first sentence [quoted above] or deviates from "reality" per your second sentence [quoted above], I'd be delighted to read and discuss it.

AlanM

7th Apr 2007, 18:38

WR - the reality is that your super duper unit (do tell us where it is) probably has something that chevvers is wanting: That is, a good old radar display which is not a computer screen. ie good solid primary returns like the ones we used to have - not a "+" for a primary return and a "x" for a secondary return.

Computers are used nowadays to interpret and display the returns on our screens. They surpress most of the primary contacts that are slow and low/even composite aircraft.

Dpn't be lulled into always believing you are clearly seen.

IO540

7th Apr 2007, 21:29

You've just taken the thread off into some speculative direction when there is a known, historical problem supported by hard facts, to deal.

Not sure you can state that, WR.

So far you have been lucky that those non-Mode C returns which you assume were below CAS actually were below CAS.

Etc.

zkdli

8th Apr 2007, 07:34

IO540,
You are quite right. I know that some of the most dangerous, and I use the word advisedly, infringements have been with aircraft that do not have a transponder of any type and the controller has been correct to assume that the aircraft was outside CAS. A microlight at FL80 for istance passing 0.16nm from a 737 and controllers only knew it was there when the 737 pilot called the traffic passing his 2 o'clock. I don't believe he would have been able to avoid it if it had been 12 o'clock...:sad:

BEagle

8th Apr 2007, 08:15

Well, judging by the virtual chaos on London Information yesterday, I would imagine that if many of those pilots hadnavigational skill equalling their abysmal RT skills, then there will indeed have been many infringements.....

Most RT seemed to be coming from the 'Lunch at Le Touquet' brigade. Which makes me wonder why there can't be a specific frequency dedicated to cross-channel crossings.... The rest of the world might then be able to use London FIS. Who, it has to be said, do a grand job of keeping some utter idiots safe. Including the bumbling incompetent who took over a minute to work out what 'squawk 1177 Mode C' meant.....

LARS. Nice to have when the few people left in the RAF can afford the time to provide it. Yesterday I went from Oxfordshire to Gamston and back doing a radio navigation and IF trip. Classic hazy conditions, good IMC rating weather! After leaving Brize we tried London FIS (whilst VMC at 3000ft), but that became impossible due to the wall-to-wall yakking. So a quick check with East Midlands and they were happy to provide us with a RIS in IMC. Up to FL50 and into the odd cloud when well clear of the Daventry CTA; all was peace and quiet as we turned at Cottesmore and descended to FL45 towards Gamston. Thanks, chaps and chapesses!

Back home at FL35 with a FIS from East Midlands in VMC towards CTM, then up to FL40 from CTM to DTY. Less than 1000' vertically from cloud, so technically IMC but unable to obtain a RIS from either East Midlands or Coventry....

Had it been a trip during the week, we could have used Brize, then Cottesmore and finally Waddington for LARS. But the service isn't available at weekends when traffic outside CAS is at its busiest - it really is time that a better service outside CAS became available 24/7!

Interestingly, our satanic device didn't have the CTM TACAN in its database. It was nice to have the non-IFR Garmin GPS150 backing up the IFR-approved FM-immune 1940's VOR technology though.....:rolleyes:

chevvron

8th Apr 2007, 13:17

IO540: there used to be two dedicated 'Channel Crossing' services, one from Lydd and the other from Kent Radar (at Manston), this latter being provided by a NATS controller working alongside the RAF Manston Approach controllers.
I'm sure if finance was forthcoming, the present ATS provider at Manston could do the same again (staff availability and radar serviceability permitting)
Also, provision of LARS isn't restricted to weekday only RAF units; what about Cardiff, Farnborough and Southend although admittedly their hands are tied somewhat due to a lack of SSR.

Sedbergh

10th Apr 2007, 08:16

Well there were 2 straight through the Weston on the Green DZ on Sunday morning (one Cessna, one Jodel) plus a Katana that got halfway through & then peeled off and b***** off quick.

Wearing a parachute or one of those nasty glider winch cables on your wingtip could really spoil your day!:uhoh:

scooter boy

10th Apr 2007, 08:54

Well we have had fantastic weather this easter, haven't we.

Friday I did Plymouth to Humberside, didn't see a single aircraft at FL50.
Saturday took my old dad from Humberside to Rotterdam and back FL60, once again nil traffic except in the terminal areas.
Yesterday did Humberside to Plymouth at FL60/70, nil traffic except the Dunkeswell para dropping a/c (who was not talking to Exeter) which I never saw and no doubt never saw me as he spiralled up to drop his payload off while climbing through my level.
Exeter called his position to me and my TCAS confirmed this and let me manoevre safety around him.
ATC were busy but courteous and accomodating at all times - I was never denied a clearance.

Seems to me that 95% of the calls were coming from a/c at levels below 2000'.
Most of the RT I heard (and hopefully transmitted) was OK but there was the odd verbose call and very occasional embarrasing to listen to one.
I was going from southwest to north east so avoided the busiest airspace.

I am sure that the skies in the South East were even more of a hornet's nest than usual and would be interested to hear how many infringements there were, the type of a/c and level of pilot experience in each case.

Long may the weather last!

SB

zkdli

10th Apr 2007, 16:41

well Chaps,
I said that I would find out the total for the weekend.I beleive that in LTCC they reported 6 infringements and Farnborough reported another 6.
There were at least two pilots who really took the biscuit (or some such word.)
one who decided that as the direct track from BPK to DET went through the LCY CTA he would follow this route even when specifically told to remain clear of CAS. (He new the CTA was there).:ugh:
Another who flew a helicopter (with no squawk) just east of Redhill then two miles east of Gatwick and turned right to parallel the approach. the tower controllers idntified it as a helicopter. and the 767 pilot told TC the altitude as he departed and took avoiding action. (It was a bit lower than 2,000ft.):mad:
Luckily all involved took immediate action and there was no danger to the aircraft other than the avoiding action and the stopped departures. The reason the nonsquawker was spotted was the Redhill tower saw the aircraft and called TC. Thanks Guys!:)