Timothy
3rd Nov 2012, 11:32
Partly following a discussion on PPL/IR about penetrating D201 without a clearance, I wrote to DAP:
Andy,
A general point and then some specific questions, if I may.
It is quite difficult, when in flight, to determine whether a DA is subject to Byelaws. The two sources appear to be (1) the remarks of UKAIP ENR5.1.3 and (2) whether the DA appears in the footnotes of the half-mill chart marked with an asterisk (there does not seem to be any indication on the chart.)
I wonder why the CAA makes the presence or absence of byelaws so obscure? Would it not make sense for charts to be marked as to whether they are, effectively, prohibited? (Unless I am missing something; but I am a very experienced user of UK OCAS, and, if I am missing it, I would guess that the great majority of others are too.)
The question which leads on from that is to the CAA’s attitude to the penetration of DAs which are not subject to byelaws. This could arise where (1) there is no DACS, (2) the DACS cannot be reached, or, indeed, (3) accidentally. Is it CAA policy to take notice of such a penetration? (I hesitate to call it an infringement, because I wonder if it is an infringement in the normal sense of the word).
If it is policy to pursue such a penetration, under what article would it be dealt with? Is it considered Endangerment?
If it is considered Endangerment, should there not be a policy to formally restrict access?
If it is not considered Endangerment, is there not an argument for distinguishing strongly between those DAs where access is restricted by law and those which are merely informative? This would place unrestricted DAs on a par with, for example, MATZs and AIAAs.
That actually raises another question, which is the CAA’s attitude towards civilian aircraft penetrating the non-ATZ parts of a MATZ without clearance. Is that considered Endangerment?
I come across a great deal of misunderstanding and myth among pilots about DAs. Many people just avoid the red areas on the chart, even if they only apply to helicopters, during the week or when activated by NOTAM. In some cases, for example D026 Lulworth, this can unnecessarily cause serious choke points where pilots who are not aware that the area is closed at weekends are funnelled into quite narrow gaps.
I realise that there is a glib answer of “pre-flight preparedness obviates all these problems”, but that does not allow for three truths:
that the information is obscure in the official publications,
that private pilots do not receive the level of training that professional and military pilots receive and
that private flying is permitted, and will often, not be constrained to a plan, the pilot is at liberty to change his mind as to route and level once airborne and cannot have the full AIP and Statute to hand.
I wonder if you would mind making CAA policy on these matters clear, and then may think about the promulgation of the policy and how that affects pilots?
Thank you!
Timothy
I have received the following, very full, answer:
Directorate of Airspace Policy
Off-Route Airspace 2
1 November 2012
UK DANGER AREA - POLICY
Your Reference: Policy on DA entry dated 31 October 12:24
Dear Mr T,
Your enquiry detailed at Reference has been forwarded to my desk as I hold responsibility for UK Danger Area (DA) Policy within the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP); and I am delighted to offer a response, which I hope will be of use.
I have chosen to respond to your points in item format, which I hope you will agree makes for ease of reading.
Item 1 – VFR Charting and Byelaws
DAs marked on UK VFR Charts, which have an associated Statutory Instrument (SI)/Bye-law, are prefixed with an *, exemplar: *D203 and this is noted within the legend text. Further it advises to ‘See UK AIP ENR 1-1-5’ where you will find the SI number against the DA should you wish research it in detail. I wouldn’t agree that the CAA makes presence or absence of DA SI/Bye-laws obscure as VFR charts note their presence and the UK AIP notifies their existence.
Item 2 – DA Penetration
A DA which has an associated and notified SI/Bye-law should only be penetrated in compliance with the detailed legislation, whilst those which have no SI/Bye-law are not avoids. You will be aware that DAs are ‘areas which have been notified within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may take place or exist at such times as may be notified’ and that to cross the associated airspace safely, pilots should make good use of a Danger Area Crossing Service (DACS) or Danger Area Activity Information Service (DAAIS), where notified.
The provision of a DACS or DAAIS is to support the safe crossing of a DA and pilots are to ensure they do not endanger the safety of their aircraft or its occupants when transiting. Those DAs where no DACS or DAAIS is notified are again not avoids.
The Authority’s approach to the inappropriate penetration of DA airspace is to track DA airspace infringements through an all stakeholder group – the Airspace infringements Working Group – to understand better the reasons or causal factors associated. Should a pilot choose to transit said DA without gaining any airspace or activity information and subsequently endangers his aircraft or its occupant’s, legal action will be considered: UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) Articles 137 and 138 apply.
As an aircraft operator you will be well aware of this authority’s drive to ensure the Flexible Use of Airspace, to ensure efficiency, safety and availability. If DAs were to become Prohibited or Restricted Areas there would be a considerable loss of available Class G airspace, which would lead to a loss in flexibility of operations.
You may be interested to know that through a programme of proactive engagement by DAP over the past 12 months 805 nm3 of DA airspace has been permanently released. In addition, increasingly flexible activation (ie via NOTAM) and novel partitioning arrangements - such as with EGD011 (Dartmoor) - have significantly increased airspace access in the area to GA users. This process will continue aiming to deliver benefits for the network and GA alike.
In respect to comparing ATZ/MATZ/AIAA to a DA this could never be the case as those aircraft operating within a DA cannot comply with the Rules of the Air, due to the nature of their operations – hence they are contained within a DA. Additionally, other activities within a DA, such as the firing of heavy artillery and demolition have an uncontrolled element in their operation.
Item 3 – ATZ/MATZ
Non-military aircraft are not regulated to comply with a MATZ, but are to comply with the Rules of the Air pertaining to flights within an ATZ. Should a civil pilot chose to transit a MATZ, whilst remaining outside of the ATZ, and in doing so endangers his aircraft or occupants then again legal action in accordance with the ANO Articles 137 and 138 would be considered. To ensure the safe transit of a MATZ this authority would actively encourage aircraft operators to make full use of a notified MATZ crossing service.
Item 4 – Planning
I would not agree that ‘pre-flight planning’ is the glib answer, rather it is an essential element to flying operations. All the information to support pre-flight planning is available in UK Flight Information Publications and various other sources endorsed by the CAA. It is this authority’s view that pilot’s can and do generally make best use of available aeronautical information to support safe flying.
I thank you for your enquiry and I do hope that this note answers your points; and I wish you many hours of safe flying.
Yours faithfully
[Signed electronically]
Robert
R K O’Neill
Off-Route Airspace Specialist
Directorate of Airspace Policy
Civil Aviation Authority
I have replied:
Robert,
Let me thank you for such a full, and fast, response.
I apologise for the asterisk bit. I think that my misconception that they are not reliably printed on the chart stems from a misapprehension on my part that a much higher proportion are subject to bye laws than actually are!
I shall promulgate your response through the online forums, as I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding among pilots at all levels of knowledge and qualification, including instructors.
I am reassured particularly about D201, which covers a massive area, in which the density of UAVs must be very small. I would have thought that "big sky" theory applies in spades there. Even if DACS announces that the airspace is hot, and that there are UAVs flying, it still must be a safer place than over BNN, BKY or OCK on a sunny weekend! It is reassuring to know that the CAA would not consider entry actionable in its own right.
Any comments on that before I push this information out?
I really do appreciate your speed of response.
Timothy
Andy,
A general point and then some specific questions, if I may.
It is quite difficult, when in flight, to determine whether a DA is subject to Byelaws. The two sources appear to be (1) the remarks of UKAIP ENR5.1.3 and (2) whether the DA appears in the footnotes of the half-mill chart marked with an asterisk (there does not seem to be any indication on the chart.)
I wonder why the CAA makes the presence or absence of byelaws so obscure? Would it not make sense for charts to be marked as to whether they are, effectively, prohibited? (Unless I am missing something; but I am a very experienced user of UK OCAS, and, if I am missing it, I would guess that the great majority of others are too.)
The question which leads on from that is to the CAA’s attitude to the penetration of DAs which are not subject to byelaws. This could arise where (1) there is no DACS, (2) the DACS cannot be reached, or, indeed, (3) accidentally. Is it CAA policy to take notice of such a penetration? (I hesitate to call it an infringement, because I wonder if it is an infringement in the normal sense of the word).
If it is policy to pursue such a penetration, under what article would it be dealt with? Is it considered Endangerment?
If it is considered Endangerment, should there not be a policy to formally restrict access?
If it is not considered Endangerment, is there not an argument for distinguishing strongly between those DAs where access is restricted by law and those which are merely informative? This would place unrestricted DAs on a par with, for example, MATZs and AIAAs.
That actually raises another question, which is the CAA’s attitude towards civilian aircraft penetrating the non-ATZ parts of a MATZ without clearance. Is that considered Endangerment?
I come across a great deal of misunderstanding and myth among pilots about DAs. Many people just avoid the red areas on the chart, even if they only apply to helicopters, during the week or when activated by NOTAM. In some cases, for example D026 Lulworth, this can unnecessarily cause serious choke points where pilots who are not aware that the area is closed at weekends are funnelled into quite narrow gaps.
I realise that there is a glib answer of “pre-flight preparedness obviates all these problems”, but that does not allow for three truths:
that the information is obscure in the official publications,
that private pilots do not receive the level of training that professional and military pilots receive and
that private flying is permitted, and will often, not be constrained to a plan, the pilot is at liberty to change his mind as to route and level once airborne and cannot have the full AIP and Statute to hand.
I wonder if you would mind making CAA policy on these matters clear, and then may think about the promulgation of the policy and how that affects pilots?
Thank you!
Timothy
I have received the following, very full, answer:
Directorate of Airspace Policy
Off-Route Airspace 2
1 November 2012
UK DANGER AREA - POLICY
Your Reference: Policy on DA entry dated 31 October 12:24
Dear Mr T,
Your enquiry detailed at Reference has been forwarded to my desk as I hold responsibility for UK Danger Area (DA) Policy within the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP); and I am delighted to offer a response, which I hope will be of use.
I have chosen to respond to your points in item format, which I hope you will agree makes for ease of reading.
Item 1 – VFR Charting and Byelaws
DAs marked on UK VFR Charts, which have an associated Statutory Instrument (SI)/Bye-law, are prefixed with an *, exemplar: *D203 and this is noted within the legend text. Further it advises to ‘See UK AIP ENR 1-1-5’ where you will find the SI number against the DA should you wish research it in detail. I wouldn’t agree that the CAA makes presence or absence of DA SI/Bye-laws obscure as VFR charts note their presence and the UK AIP notifies their existence.
Item 2 – DA Penetration
A DA which has an associated and notified SI/Bye-law should only be penetrated in compliance with the detailed legislation, whilst those which have no SI/Bye-law are not avoids. You will be aware that DAs are ‘areas which have been notified within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may take place or exist at such times as may be notified’ and that to cross the associated airspace safely, pilots should make good use of a Danger Area Crossing Service (DACS) or Danger Area Activity Information Service (DAAIS), where notified.
The provision of a DACS or DAAIS is to support the safe crossing of a DA and pilots are to ensure they do not endanger the safety of their aircraft or its occupants when transiting. Those DAs where no DACS or DAAIS is notified are again not avoids.
The Authority’s approach to the inappropriate penetration of DA airspace is to track DA airspace infringements through an all stakeholder group – the Airspace infringements Working Group – to understand better the reasons or causal factors associated. Should a pilot choose to transit said DA without gaining any airspace or activity information and subsequently endangers his aircraft or its occupant’s, legal action will be considered: UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) Articles 137 and 138 apply.
As an aircraft operator you will be well aware of this authority’s drive to ensure the Flexible Use of Airspace, to ensure efficiency, safety and availability. If DAs were to become Prohibited or Restricted Areas there would be a considerable loss of available Class G airspace, which would lead to a loss in flexibility of operations.
You may be interested to know that through a programme of proactive engagement by DAP over the past 12 months 805 nm3 of DA airspace has been permanently released. In addition, increasingly flexible activation (ie via NOTAM) and novel partitioning arrangements - such as with EGD011 (Dartmoor) - have significantly increased airspace access in the area to GA users. This process will continue aiming to deliver benefits for the network and GA alike.
In respect to comparing ATZ/MATZ/AIAA to a DA this could never be the case as those aircraft operating within a DA cannot comply with the Rules of the Air, due to the nature of their operations – hence they are contained within a DA. Additionally, other activities within a DA, such as the firing of heavy artillery and demolition have an uncontrolled element in their operation.
Item 3 – ATZ/MATZ
Non-military aircraft are not regulated to comply with a MATZ, but are to comply with the Rules of the Air pertaining to flights within an ATZ. Should a civil pilot chose to transit a MATZ, whilst remaining outside of the ATZ, and in doing so endangers his aircraft or occupants then again legal action in accordance with the ANO Articles 137 and 138 would be considered. To ensure the safe transit of a MATZ this authority would actively encourage aircraft operators to make full use of a notified MATZ crossing service.
Item 4 – Planning
I would not agree that ‘pre-flight planning’ is the glib answer, rather it is an essential element to flying operations. All the information to support pre-flight planning is available in UK Flight Information Publications and various other sources endorsed by the CAA. It is this authority’s view that pilot’s can and do generally make best use of available aeronautical information to support safe flying.
I thank you for your enquiry and I do hope that this note answers your points; and I wish you many hours of safe flying.
Yours faithfully
[Signed electronically]
Robert
R K O’Neill
Off-Route Airspace Specialist
Directorate of Airspace Policy
Civil Aviation Authority
I have replied:
Robert,
Let me thank you for such a full, and fast, response.
I apologise for the asterisk bit. I think that my misconception that they are not reliably printed on the chart stems from a misapprehension on my part that a much higher proportion are subject to bye laws than actually are!
I shall promulgate your response through the online forums, as I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding among pilots at all levels of knowledge and qualification, including instructors.
I am reassured particularly about D201, which covers a massive area, in which the density of UAVs must be very small. I would have thought that "big sky" theory applies in spades there. Even if DACS announces that the airspace is hot, and that there are UAVs flying, it still must be a safer place than over BNN, BKY or OCK on a sunny weekend! It is reassuring to know that the CAA would not consider entry actionable in its own right.
Any comments on that before I push this information out?
I really do appreciate your speed of response.
Timothy