infringements due to poor airspace design ?

[bad bear]

hi, I am new to this subject but I was wondering if any study has been done to see if the airspace designers are giving pilots a near impossible task. I looked at the web site and found this report FLY ON TRACK (http://flyontrack.co.uk/content/reports.asp) of a poor chap suckered in to squeezing through a gap that was only 1 nm wide. ( who can reliably fly through a gap 1 nm wide? Even I could not regularly do that!) The interesting point is that he was in part forced in to this as there was not an over fly option due to Class "A" airspace at 2,500' over head. In hind site he could have gone north of the airfield following the M25.
The thoughts that come to mind are;

1 why is an airway 10 nm wide? Could it be due to the performance of ground and airborne nav equipment and an allowance for pilot technique? If so how are private pilots supposed to get through a narrow gap using this technology?

2 Almost 80 % of the infringements that I looked at were under an airspace base of 2,500' and class "A". Could this be part of the problem? I find low level nav quite difficult and have to plan really thoroughly and fly on a 1;250,000 map as prominent nav features are not always visible from such low altitudes. If pilots were allowed to climb to 3,500' the features would be more visible and navigation would be more certain and detours round ATZs would not be required there bye allowing the helpful guidance of the LAM VOR.

Much of the 2,500' airspace was introduced in the 70's to simplify the airspace as before that there were many different bases, not because it was needed for transport aeroplanes, could it be released now especially as the modern jets climb better?

If my observations are correct, should the CAA create corridors in the London area (even class "D") that are high enough and wide enough for an ordinary pilot to have a reasonable chance of getting through?
If my assumptions are correct.. the pilots who get lost due to being forced to fly at low level could become really lost and stray in to a critical piece of airspace due to being deprived of the visual features that he was forced to rely on? So un-necessary low airspace bases could be a factor in causing serious infringements. Why would transport aeroplanes want to be at 3,000' unless on the approach any way? GA pilots get the rough end of the deal, "their" airspace is not designed... it is what is left over from the big boys with no thought as to how it can be navigated. Play fair CAA give the little guys a chance and design routes that are safely and easily flyable

Looking forward to good debate
bb

[P.Pilcher]

Regrettably it has always been the case that the navigational requirements placed on inexperienced pilots without instrument ratings, having to cope with simple to fly but difficult to manage aircraft as they don't have autopilots are infinitely more severe than those who have shelled out the cost of getting the rating that entitles them to fly IFR in controlled airspace. I have seen both sides of the fence having held a PPL and instructor rating for many years before getting and using my ATPL and can tell many a story from personal experience of having to cope with this sort of thing. As soon as you have that rating, life gets easy as you have a controller watching you on his radar telling you which way to go!
Regrettably, the airspace planners give little thought to non instrument rated G.A. when planning the inexorable extensions to controlled airspace to make it easier for the holiday makers to visit the costa del sol e.t.c. Of course in my day, there was no GPS which probably makes really accurate navigation easier these days, nevertheless the accuracy of navigation required in the example given above is really ridiculous. I would also query the accuracy of the radar display used to implicate a pilot in infringement proceedings if the corridor is as narrow as a mere 1nm.

P.P.

[Fright Level]

Take just one airport under the London TMA with a flow rate of one aircraft a minute departing, climbing to 6000 in all directions (mainly tracks towards DVR, SAM, DET, MID & BPK). Add to that one aircraft a minute leaving the holds or general vicinity of OCK, BIG, LAM & BNN to be at around 3,000 on a 10 mile final for Heathrow. There simply is no space for (uncontrolled) VFR above 2,500.

Add to that a handful of other airports, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, Farnborough, Biggin, London City etc. The space is tight even for IFR traffic in Class A, there is simply no room for your VFR corridors in this area. Fly 50 miles away from the busiest airspace in Western Europe and there is plenty of room to navigate.

With a good line to track (M25), the corridor is not that hard to get through, especially at low level, but the need to keep a very high lookout is vital as there is plenty of traffic there.

[bad bear]

Add to that one aircraft a minute leaving the holds or general vicinity of OCK, BIG, LAM & BNN to be at around 3,000 on a 10 mile final for Heathrow. There simply is no space for (uncontrolled) VFR above 2,500.

Ok debate started !

Heathrow inbounds normally drop to 4,000' initially droping to 3,000 close to the centre line and climb unrestricted to 6,000, normally at a very good rate. Only go-arounds climb to 3,000' (or 2,000')

Even Heathrow does not do 120 movements per hour.

b b

[Fright Level]

Heathrow inbounds normally drop to 4,000' initially droping to 3,000 close to the centre line and climb unrestricted to 6,000, normally at a very good rate. Only go-arounds climb to 3,000' (or 2,000')

SFC > 4000 Approach and go around traffic
SFC > 6000 SIDS
4000 > 8000 Intermediate approach/departures
8000+ Stacks


I can't see where the space is that you propose :bored:

Departures only have to make 4000' by Beaconsfield when they leave the CTR to the north or 4000' over Epsom to the south. A 400 tonne jumbo just about makes this restriction and there are plenty of those that depart everyday.

Separation laterally and vertically is required, not only to avoid intimate aluminium but for wake. I wouldn't fancy being 500' under any commercial jet in my 172 as the "heavy" passes in climb/descent nor level flight less than 200 yards from me.

[bad bear]

The WOBUN departure requires 4,000' by LON 10d which is 1 nm before the CTR and is drawn to shallower climb angles than much of Europe
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGLL/EG_AD_2_EGLL_6-4_en.pdf
Even the early A340s makes it.
You can check how various plane perform by looking at openATC (http://www.openatc.com/) and it is quite revealing how empty some of the sky is.
The base of airspace is 500' below planes in many places but not heard of 172s falling out of the sky, however the corridor would not have to be tight up to the SID.
My thoughts on opening the thread was to suggest a way of reducing safety critical infringements.

b b

[BackPacker]

You're all lucky bastards. The Schiphol TMA (class A) covers about 1/5 of the Netherlands and extends from 1500' upwards. And is in danger of being increased laterally in the near future as well.

Having said that, I find that navigating at 1000' or 2000' doesn't make all that much of a difference (except if the terrain rises above 1000' of course). You either need to follow very prominent features or rely on radio navigation.

And in this respect my main gripe would be the lack of suitable VOR transmitters outside CTRs. Around London you can do a semi-circle OCK - BIG - DET - LAM - BPK - BNN easily at 2000' (mind a few ATZs though) but west of Heathrow it gets tough and you have to do intercepts or use NDBs. (If CPT were moved about 10 miles SE it would help a lot.)

The same is true in the Netherlands. PAM is beautifully positioned for VFR traffic OCAS, as is SPY and arguably HSD, but all other VORs are either too close to, or inside a CTR, making them next to useless for low-level en-route navigation unless you're doing intercepts or have a DME as well.

I'm planning a trip from Rotterdam to the middle of the UK in an aircraft that only has one VOR, no DME, no ADF and no moving-map GPS. Reaching the north of London (CFD/DTY) is easy but from that point on it gets tough due to a lack of suitable navaids.

Have just read the FlyOnTrack report and have to admit that routing between the Elstree ATZ and the Heathrow CTR is madness unless you have a moving map GPS.

[kenparry]

bad bear

Not only does the CAS have to cope with the normal arrival and departure profiles, but also the shallower climb-out in the event of engine failure. I am well aware it does not happen often - but if you are flying an airliner with an engine out, you have more then enough to think about without the complications of the odd light aircraft whizzing past the window.

[bad bear]

but if you are flying an airliner with an engine out, you have more then enough to think about without the complications of the odd light aircraft whizzing past the window.

Ah yes engines do fail but while single engine one would be unlikely to go very far unless a return is not possible due wx, guess there would not be many light aircraft around then. I would asume most pilots of twins would rather land ASAP than go flying around any longer than absolutely necessary. Many airlines design an engine out profile (e.g. ahead to x feet then direct to y to hold) and this could be contained in CAS. This would just be one event that needs to be factored in to the final design.
b b

[IO540]

I don't think UK airspace is an issue, and is a lot more open than much European airspace.

I think in N Europe perhaps only France could be considered better, but they don't allow IMC flight in their widespread Class E, and the place is covered in prohibited areas which work by day/time and in some places can be a b*gger to pick one's way through when VFR planning.

In aviation, accurate navigation is essential, just to find some grass airfield which may not be visible until 2 miles away. So avoiding CAS does not require additional techniques.

However, you do have to navigate using modern means - a decent GPS. The methods currently taught in the PPL are inadequate for all but the most regular local bimbles, sticking to well known well rehearsed routes.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

However, you do have to navigate using modern means - a decent GPS.
Yeah, right. Went flying today in an aircraft with no problems with the GPS written up in the tech log.

A fair chunk of the time it was reporting "I've got duff input information, so I'm not going to tell you anything", which didn't bother me, but at other times the moving map was displaying information which was complete bollocks.

Which didn't bother me either, as I was using both visual navigation and radio navaids, but it would quite likely have upset someone who'd planned their flight based only on GPS!

[IO540]

Here we go agaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin GtW.

If I show a typical airspace map to some well science/engineering-educated, intelligent but non-aviation character and tell them one is supposed to navigate around that lot using a map, stopwatch, compass, looking for railways, roads, etc, they just fall over laughing and twist their neck right off in disbelief.

That's before one points out to them that Heathrow is only a few mins' flying time from the edge of their CAS....

The PPL training business has been pretending, since about WW1, that you can actually teach this amazing technique to all of the punters that walk through the door. Well, you obviously can't. The vast majority drop out within a year, if not months, and of the long term hangers-on maybe 5% can fly that precisely and do it reliably over real trips (easy local bimbles, or along the coast, don't count). Pre-1950 or so it didn't matter, but these days it does.

I've got c. 1k hrs and I could do it but I'd be working my ar** off and not paying much attention to other stuff.

GPS written up in the tech log

You need to get a half decent GPS ;) Would you fly from say Lydd to say Glasgow with the radio INOP? Where do you draw the line?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Would you fly from say Lydd to say Glasgow with the radio INOP?
Well, I flew from Cambridge to Lydd and back again with the GPS intermittently: working, admitting, it wasn't working, and just plain lying. It's always worked fine on previous occasions I've flown that aircraft.

Like I said, I had no trouble following the VOR needles, which are perfectly adequate for avoiding controlled airspace, given a suitably chosen route. (Admittedly more tricky in parts of the country where there aren't any VORs ... but then there tends to be less low-down controlled airspace to avoid in those parts of the country.)

All I was saying was that if you rely entirely on one single box not failing for your only means of navigation, whatever the box, you're getting it wrong.

And no, I wouldn't fly from Lydd to Glasgo with the radio INOP; if I were flying from Lydd to Glasgow, firstly I'd take two radios with me, and secondly if they both failed I'd probably have lost a fair amount of other kit with them, so I'd land.

But I'm not going to land just because the GPS goes INOP when I've got two perfectly good NAV radios, a perfectly good ADF (yeah, I know), two perfectly good COM radios (for VDF and radar services), and decent visibility out the window.

[IO540]

OK but you know what you are doing.

[Molesworth 1]

OK but you know what you are doing.

We all know how to navigate sans GPS - else we wouldn't have a PPL!

No point flying from Lydd to Glasgow IMO. Cheaper, faster and more fun travelling first class on the choo-choo.

[bad bear]

We all know how to navigate sans GPS - else we wouldn't have a PPL!
Are we being set a near impossible task by the designers? In some areas the task is clearly beyond the abilities of many pilot, otherwise there would not be so many infringements. Are pilots too macho to admit that the task they face is too hard and demand an easy to follow safe corridor?

[M609]

I would asume most pilots of twins would rather land ASAP than go flying around any longer than absolutely necessary.

Unless it's on fire and they can't put it out, they tend to do just that, fly around! Getting to safe alt. and cleaning the a/c up, with time, space and peace to sort through checklists. All the engine failures I have inside knowledge about (737/DHC8) from the ATC side has had the crew take their sweet time in preparing the a/c for the single engine approach.

No cranking the a/c around in VMC and heading for the airport.

[Molesworth 1]

bad bear

I do so your point- having been told by Essex Radar a while ago that I had vertically infringed (must have been a hundred feet or so). They didn't report me, thank goodness. It didn't help that they didn't tell me it was a vertical infringement - I was initially confused and thought it was horizontal.

Really, I should have known better though. I was too concerned about being too low over the Duxford ATZ.

Given the relatively low volume of GA traffic and the powerful lobbies being elsewhere I don't see them giving us an inch more space!