How much help?

[jollyrog]

I wonder how much good advice people need before it becomes silly.

Yesterday, Around 1030 I heard Farnborough Radar telling a foreign pilot somewhere around the Gatwick zone (you know how it is, I was busy and I didn't get all of what was said) -

"[callsign] you are close to controlled airspace, suggest you descend or turn left."

"[same callsign] turn left now or descend to 1400 feet, you are about to enter controlled airspace"

"[same callsign] the controlled airspace you are close to has a base of 1500 feet. Turn left now or descend"

After several calls of this nature, the pilot finally descended to below 1500 feet, but not without (what I thought) was a lot of radio waffle.


Later, around 1920, something similar to a another foreign pilot in the Luton zone area, this time from London Information. Several attempts to persuade him not to do stupid thing, followed by a clear instruction to him to change frequency to Luton Radar "now". I can guess why.

I nearly made an airspace boo-boo earlier in the week and got a firm prod from London Information which I responded to immediately. I just wonder why when they make the effort to save us from our own mistakes, some pilots don't react.

[dublinpilot]

Was language a factor? (Not saying that it's a valid excuse....Just wondering if it was a factor).

dp

[jollyrog]

It's possible, but I don't think so. Both of the pilots seemed to speak good English and the "instructions" given were very clear.

I could be wrong.

[flybymike]

Weather may have been a factor. I think it would be incumbent upon ATC to ascertain whether a VFR pilot was able to accept diversionary "instructions" before issuing them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Weather may have been a factor. I think it would be incumbent upon ATC to ascertain whether a VFR pilot was able to accept diversionary "instructions" before issuing them.

Surely the other way around - the VFR pilot should understand the instructions and either accept them (by readback), or clearly state their inability to comply.

What JollyRog describes sounds very much like the recipient simply not understanding the instructions.

G

[englishal]

or the airspace....

The UK charts are confusing IMHO, they should have a "London Terminal Area Airspace" chart on the back, with no terrain or shading - just the airspace.

[Whirlygig]

Englishal, that sounds like far too sensible an idea!

I'm curious as to whether each radio call made by Farnborough Radar was actually acknowledged in any way at all by the pilot. Did he hear it the first or second time? Was his workload already too high that he missed the call?

Cheers

Whirls

[whitehorse]

englishal, sounds like an OK idea, but in my experience, being based at a south coast airport, those that come from "over there" don´t use our 1:500,000 charts, they have all purchased Jep VFR charts before departure and are using those. So possible map problems in this case should be discussed around the Jep VFR charts.

[Fright Level]

they should have a "London Terminal Area Airspace" chart on the back, with no terrain or shading - just the airspace

Good idea. I've just been flying around LAX and their chart has exactly that on the back. Really handy for seeing where the horizontal and vertical limits are before turning over and seeing them amongst all the clutter on the main chart.

[BristolScout]

Were these guys actually using charts or relying on GPS?

[notfarg]

I think you will find that the "descend to below 1500" is nothing to do with the Heathrow/Gatwick area but more to do with the temporary restrictions around Fairoaks and the area to the east of Farnborough for the airshow !!! Ergo a map of the London TMA on the back of charts will not help anyone who does not check NOTAMS.

[jollyrog]

No, it was Gatwick. It was mentioned in the transmission(s).

NOTAMs on Sunday had deactivated the previously published areas 8 & 9 at Farnborough.