On Track [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Andrew Sinclair

13th Jul 2003, 17:40

Over a period of years the UK CAA have been becoming increasingly concerned about the number of controlled airspace infringements. They decided to commission a project to analyse the reasons why. There is a good website with useful information here:

Fly On Track (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/)

This report is the recommendations of this project. Airspace, especially in the areas such at Heathrow/Gatwick, Manchester, Luton/Stansted, is complicated and requires enhanced navigational caution. Airspace infringements are not restricted to these areas, they occur in different places for different reasons and the research is looking at patterns of flight behaviour and other contributing factors in order to make any changes felt necessary.

Warped Factor

13th Jul 2003, 22:15

WorkingHard,

I'll get the Stansted controllers to read it if you get the multiple infringers of CAS going to and from the PFA Rally at Kemble over the last few days to read it, and maybe plan their next flights a bit better as a result, as well :rolleyes:

WF.

Andrew Sinclair

13th Jul 2003, 22:27

I was chatting with a couple of guys from the CAA who were manning the stand at PFA Kemble and I am sure one of the gentlemen said there had been 42(?) infringements in connection with flights to and from Kemble. I am sure he said 42, but when I think about it now that seems an extraordinarily high number, not challenging him, but rather my memory!

Can anyone confirm this number?

flower

13th Jul 2003, 23:32

It was very hot in that marquee so I was feeling rather sticky when we talked , but yes the number of infringments he mentioned was very high , and at that time it was Saturday morning with many more arrivals and departures to come so I suspect it may well rise .

It was also obvious that although the majority had read their AICs others either didn't understand it or hadn't actually read it.

englishal

14th Jul 2003, 00:57

Looks very sensible to me....I wonder what the bit about PPL/IR 's and Foreign IR's will lead to....?

:D

Chilli Monster

14th Jul 2003, 02:14

Andrew S

You might find that the number quoted sounds about right for Lyneham only! God knows how many others there were.

Needless to say you may find quite a bit of opposition to it being held at Kemble again.

vintage ATCO

14th Jul 2003, 03:42

I have re-read the report and whilst undoubtedly there is some good stuff in there, I am, quite frankly, disappointed. It seems to be a list of suggestions submitted by others, no doubt quite laudable, but with no critical evaluation as to whether they are achievable. Perhaps this wasn't their remit, I don't know.

It is easy to recognised all of the arguments put forward in the report, some of which are quite valid, and others of which are frankly unconvincing but absent any added-value commentary though, the report amounted to little more than a GA wish list.

For instance, yes, LARS can be greatly improved by having more LARS units, but how is this to be funded.

I also find it disappointing that no one from ATC was on the team.

So, where do we go from here?

VA

flower

14th Jul 2003, 04:11

Having never experienced a PFA Rally before I cannot say whether or not the number of infringements were worse than any other Rally before.

Kemble is ideally placed Geographically but the problem is always the few individuals (and when you consider the numbers who flew in it was few) who fail to brief correctly. Through forums such as these it was emphasisied time and time again that it was essential to be fully aufait with the AIC for the rally.
Websites such as Ontrack and the continued improvements made to the availability of NOTAMs people are running out of excuses not to brief. It would be a great shame that something should be moved simply because of the few who let the many down.

I was unaware that there was little or no ATC imput thankyou Vintage ATCO for highlighting that, it is something that should be addressed.

rustle

14th Jul 2003, 04:28

Welcome to the On Track Website - taking a completely fresh look at Airspace Infringements.

For the first time, we are asking the opinion of you at the sharp end - pilots & controllers - to tell us what's wrong with "the system", how to put it right and stop infringements. That's our aim!

From the FlyOnTrack Website home page. (My bolding)

www.flyontrack.co.uk

Okay, no non-pilots on the "team", but numerous contributions from both sides of the radio went into the documentation and website discussions.

flower

14th Jul 2003, 04:37

Thanks Rustle,
I have spent this last year upto my neck involved in a great deal of planning for new procedures at my unit.

Perhaps I should try to give some time and effort to such things.
No use complaining if you you are not prepared to help out.

Mike Cross

14th Jul 2003, 04:46

Flower I suspect you are misenterpreting VA's comment, which I believe was about the OnTrack project rather than about the Kemble AIC.

VA
As most infringements result from pilot related problems, it was important to commission a project team of non-CAA active pilots, to discuss infringements inconfidence with pilots and controllers, without fear of punitive action. The selection
of suitable team members was critical to the success of the project. It was essential they had collective experience of both GA pilot and controller operational issues and also had inter-personal skills that would encourage reporters to feel comfortable
when discussing sensitive events.

Note that the OnTrack team were not from the CAA and also not from ATC.

ATC were free to provide input, as were pilots. It was the job of the project team to collate and evaluate the information they received (and there was a lot of it) and this report is the result. It was not the job of the team to express or impose their own personal views. In collating information from pilots and controllers it was important that they were not "officials" either from the CAA or from the controller community. A controller may have felt inhibited about speaking his mind if he knew that he would be personally identifiable to a person in a position of authority, perhaps even from within the same organisation he works for.

As the quote above says, infringements generally stem from pilots. The project was trying to find the causal factors that led pilots to infringe. While controllers have to deal with the problem when it arises, they appear to be rarely involved in the factors that led to the infringement.

As I recall, there was actually quite a lot of input from controllers in the discussion.

Mike

bluskis

14th Jul 2003, 04:53

The report appears to cover all the points relevant to GA concerning avoidance of infringements, and in a very positive way.

Lets hope some of the recommendations can be implemented in a short time span.

Lets hope most of them will be implemented eventually.

A lot of expertise and professionalism has produced an in depth but clear document.

flower

14th Jul 2003, 05:01

Mike ,
thanks for that , I was aware that this was about "Ontrack " rather than Kemble, the two unfortunately are being linked.

It is interesting I have just been having a conversation about this and very little information on this if any has been disemminated locally at my unit. For what reason I do not know.If it has been then it hasn't been well publicised.

Most ATCOs are very happy to voice their views as you are well aware and if we have permission to be involved in such projects I doubt if any would be concerned about there name being linked. We are encouraged to air views within NATS which may improve safety in anyway.

As I said this last year has been manic for me with new procedures being addressed for my own unit, I shall try to find time to look at the issues they are raising and see if I can help in anyway.Even if its just adding my tuppence worth in the forums.

Mike Cross

14th Jul 2003, 05:32

Flower

You must have had your gaze averted for a long time. There was plenty of reference to the OnTrack project on this forum at the time, including postings from the team themselves. The report contains some of the publicity material. It was also featured in GASIL.

The project ran and was live on the web from August 2001 to December 2002. If your unit and its management were unaware of it that's a pity.

Mike

flower

14th Jul 2003, 05:39

Mike
unfortunately was only introduced to this forum this year which may explain a great deal.

GASIL also doesn't tend to find its way to us either.

Im very sorry :(

Mike Cross

14th Jul 2003, 06:19

GASIL, (always a good read) is here (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publications.asp?action=sercat&id=7)

Well worth printing out and sticking on the notice board.

Mike

bluskis

15th Jul 2003, 18:56

In case many GA pilots have not yet seen this thread, and particularly the link given to the actual report, I think it deserves more time near the top.

See and be seen, GPS or no GPS, ATC availability or not, these have all been discussed at length, and the report considers all these factors, and is worth a read.

gasax

15th Jul 2003, 19:25

Nothing particularly startling in the report, the key issue raised is that the GA community will judge the project by what constructive measures come out of it.

Too true, I would if anything will?

Some of the spin-offs have been very useful, the pictorial AIC from DAP for the PFA rally allowed me to reconcile 'the prominent junction' that was supposed to be point 1 on the 26 grass procedure with the mini-roundabout shielded with trees that it actually was.

Perhaps the bigger question is why on earth was that chosen when there were more bigger and less confusing points?

Anyhow all credit to the CAA for setting it up and the OnTrack people for the results. Will we get a statement from the CAA on follow-up? Will there be any? Any bets?

RichyRich

15th Jul 2003, 19:50

Mike

Thanks for the link to Gasil. As a student, and non-owner I obviously don't get my own copy. I sometimes see one in the pile of mags at my school, but it seems I never have the time to read there, as there is always other things to read (like Flying Orders, POH's).

About to plough through the OnTrack, so no comments there.

Rich

Penguina

15th Jul 2003, 20:38

Read the report last night - extremely interesting and a very worthy project. Certainly got me thinking, and as a newly qualified PPL, I'm exactly the person they want to be reaching. I have forwarded the link to some aviation friends of mine and hope there will be other opportunities to 'get involved' now.

BTW, I know it's a pressing issue, but I was surprised at just how large the proportion of incidents were attributed to using GPS ineffectively.

Andrew Sinclair

16th Jul 2003, 19:36

Rich,

You can add yourself to the distribution even if you are not an owner. It costs £12 per year for GASIL and GASCo together and they are sent to you on the publication date. The people to talk to are General Aviation Department (GAD) Admin at CAA Gatwick on 01293 573503. Although if you have access to a printer and the internet then it saves this cost I suppose.

Andy

Flyontrack

17th Jul 2003, 18:48

Thanks everyone for your comments here - glad to see the report is being widely read and well received.

We're really very pleased there are not too many surprises for you in the recommendations, as our aim was to transmit your ideas and opinions on how to improve the system. (Not by the way to evaluate them or place them in some sort of league - just to report what you at the sharp end are thinking).

Many of the recommendations had not reached the system until now - not formally anyway - and this is an excellent piece of customer feedback, which we hope will continue.

OK we didn't reach everyone - we knew it would be difficult - but 32000 individual letters to PPL holders and thousands of posters to Clubs and ATC Units + Media Articles did get a very good level of response.

If you've not seen the website it's still there at

www.flyontrack.co.uk

and of course we're keen to receive any feedback on the report, as the website is still being monitored by us and the CAA - your comment will still register where it matters!!

We'll keep you posted.

Dave

Andrew Sinclair

17th Jul 2003, 23:02

I have just read the report and focused specifically on the issue of Pre-Flight Information Bulletins (PIB) and in particular to recent introduction of the AES tool which offers web access to the ADIMS database. The now infamous web tool was introduced last year and several issue were raised with the rollout. These have now been honestly accepted by NATS AIS management.

There is still ongoing work in order to increase the intuitive nature of the AES tool and perhaps even provide an output in a format to enable users to devise their own systems for selecting, sorting and display of data. It is heartening to read that this work gains support from Paragraph 7.5, Problem Statement 4.

Also noted is the pragmatic council that plain English be used. NATS/AIS to a certain degree have their hands tied by ICAO SARPS Annex 15. Notwithstanding this, further work could be done to provide a better visual output and presentation of the NOTAM data.

We are clearly reminded as stated paragraph 7.5 “…many GA pilots report flying without a pre-flight NOTAM brief, significantly increasing the risk of infringements”. Without delving into the ANO legalities of flying without proper pre-flight planning, this statement is true in the practical real world. It is better to address this through training and awareness along with intuitive tools than to rely on any legal instrument to increase effective pre-flight planning.

With a consolidated effort by the GA community to raise awareness of the correct use of the existing web tool, coupled with help from NATS AIS Management and IS team in agreement with the CAA an acceptable intuitive graphical method could be introduced either by NATS/AIS or perhaps via third party under licence if necessary to reduce the workload in obtaining and displaying PIB NOTAM information.

The report supports the current work and the future actions and this can only be a good thing as far as the PIB/NOTAM issue is concerned. I will be interested to hear about the results of the AIWG review and any resulting actions agreed.

Evo

18th Jul 2003, 01:36

Flyontrack - what happens next? will we will hear an 'official' response to your report and/or any plans for change as a result of it?

Circuit Basher

18th Jul 2003, 15:32

Andrew Sinclair / Evo - I think that you will get much better response from Fly on Track by using their Web site / reporting mechanism. AIUI, they are not allowed / do not wish [delete as applicable] to enter into the debate on PPRuNe, but will monitor this kind of thread. As Flyontrack said, please use their Web link to provide feedback.

This isn't meant to be a pompous / 'I told you so' posting - this is to try to ensure that other people who haven't monitored previous threads on this subject don't use this as the primary feedback forum to Fly on Track.

Flyontrack - I suppose I'd best go & read your report now .... ;)

Andrew Sinclair

18th Jul 2003, 15:44

Thanks for the thought Circuit Basher, like most I have been using the website and monitoring it over a period of time. My post was intended for PPRuNe and I will give a fuller reponse on the flyontrack website when I have read the report thoroughly again.

The reason I wanted to post here was because after discussion with Phil Bate of AIS last month, his organisation are keen to monitor feedback from all different forum tools so I tend to use PPRuNe and other sites for this purpose to prompt conversation amongst people who use this site especially where it concerns PIB and NOTAM. I use any opportunity to keep the PIB/NOTAM issues high on the GA forum agenda! This should in no way detract from the primary feedback tool as you correctly mention.

Regards

Andy

P.S. I didn't take your post to be pompous in any way, you were not aware of what was in my mind when posting and your point is very valid.

Flyontrack

18th Jul 2003, 21:03

Thanks for the plug Circuit Basher - hope you agree with the report!

You're right that we like to see feedback on our website as we know the CAA monitor the responses and direct access is then achieved to some departments who may be able to take an issue on board.

To answer the obvious question - what next? - the report will now be considered by the Airspace Infringement Working Group (AIWG) at the CAA. Various GA groups will be represented, and their aim is "to implement as many recommendations as possible" to quote the Press Release.

I don't yet know how you will be able to monitor progress, but many have brought this up, and we will be suggesting some form of regular update via the website after each AIWG meeting.

Certainly it would pay to keep a weather eye on our website!

Dave E & Mike N

hatsoff

19th Jul 2003, 06:10

Just a quick read and its clear that the authors have no understanding of the limitations of transponder codes and what effect their ideas could have on civil ATC Radars.

At first glance it looks as though it was written by amateurs who simply failed to grasp their brief.
Sorry guys ; do better next time.

flower

19th Jul 2003, 07:10

I too have had just a quick glance and need a full indepth look , however to me there are many good ideas there.
Yes they need to be studied in depth but that is the basis of these recommendations to present them and for them to be analysed and to look at the practical implications of implementation.
Without a doubt we can always do with a fresh perspective on what we do, we can get all to easily entrenched in this is how we have always done it.

Andrew Sinclair

19th Jul 2003, 23:19

Hello hatsoff,

Could you post an example of what you mean concerning the transponder codes and the effect on Civil ATC Radar. I am not as experienced at looking at things from the ATC point-of-view as you are and any specific example would help.

Thanks

Andy

Flyontrack

20th Jul 2003, 23:07

Thanks for the feedback hatsoff – disappointed that you take a negative view of the report based on “a quick read and a first glance”.

If you read the report more closely you will see we have fully understood our brief, part of which was to find out what the operators wanted (not “our” ideas as you misunderstood), and translate the result into a structured set of recommendations.

We were not tasked to evaluate the feedback, other than to weed out obviously frivolous elements – not much of that appeared as it happens – the AIWG will assess the practicality of each recommendation.

As experienced professionals, we are aware of technical difficulties with transponder code allocation, but modern technology moves very rapidly and there may well be a fix available when the practicality of any changes are examined.

Incidentally, we did expect some reluctance to embrace change from some quarters, hence the caveat in the report:

“From the outset, it was recognised that pilots cause most infringements. The solution must therefore include pilot input, which may demand radical rethinking of existing views or procedures. If the safety benefits of the project are to be realised, it is essential that the recommendations and suggestions should be viewed with an open mind, without automatically restating existing procedures which may not be delivering the required safety standards.”

Oh, by the way the transponder suggestion was one of many received from ATCOs.

rustle

20th Jul 2003, 23:16

Dave, Mike, Chris - if it is any consolation, my hatsoff ;) to you for your efforts and co-ordination of issues.

Well done - let's all hope something happens next...

Andrew Sinclair

21st Jul 2003, 00:41

I second you there Rustle. I have had a good read through now and a far better understanding of the issues. I believe that hatsoff is an ATCO, hence my request to expand their initial thoughts to get a useful insight. They may not have been back to the board yet so might come back or perhaps post direct to the Fly On Track as was advised by an earlier poster.

I am interested to see what the AIWG decide is practical from the recommendations that the team made.

flower

21st Jul 2003, 00:57

Radical Change is hard for all, but we need to be thinking in a different way. Aviation needs to be pushed along not just stagnate. We have come up with major changes at my unit to accomodate different traffic situations, yes there has been some resistance but all realise that changes have to be made.

The issue of transponder codes and LARS services is a case in point, I hope that we will also look closely at how other countries provide services to GA aircraft and maybe we can come up with some fairly decent solutions.

There are some who feel that ATC are anti GA that simply isn't true, we need to work together though and stop confronting each other. Look at each others difficulties and realise that unfortunately we will not get a perfect solution but try hard to achieve a damn good one.

hatsoff

23rd Jul 2003, 00:09

Perhaps I wasn't being very fair after just a quick read through so here goes with my initial thoughts on that one aspect.

Transponder codes are limited by physics.
Already we find that during busy spells we run out of codes so allocating them to GA needs to be planned carefully and on a European Basis...this is not a National Issue.

In the old days I could filter out code 7000 leaving my airways traffic quite visable.
New rules mean that I'm not allowed to and on fine weekends we frequently find all those 7000 GA squawks under the Daventry Arrea obscuring airways traffic and often causing garbling.

The use of TCAS means that GA traffic without Mode C may appear as a conflict to airways traffic well above. Nonetheless , the Commercial Pilot is spooked and we find ourselves entering a narrative on what may be causing the spurious conflict.

GA traffic with wrongly reading mode C can cause havoc as we have to treat the traffic as a potential risk until we can formally identify it.

As a side issue please squawk Lost or call for help if you're uncertain of your position. We really appreciate it if you do your best to get out a problem quickly.
I don't know of any of my colleagues that would take any action against you if you made a reasonable effort to avoid infringeing Controlled Airspace. None of us is perfect
;)

Circuit Basher

23rd Jul 2003, 22:37

I have just undertaken a moderately complete review of the report and posted the following on the On Track Web site:

Finally got round to a detailed review of the report, for which congratulations are due to the whole On Track team. Well balanced, fairly reported and stick has been waved where appropriate at both sides of the debate, with carrots on offer as required!!

Particular items in the report which particularly struck a chord with me personally seem to primarily revolve around LARS and Maps / Charts:

Para 7.1 (P21) LARS
Suggestion of 'Flight Following' code - great idea!

Later on in the Para, the report states 'Poor standard of R/T and unfamiliarity with LARS procedures......' - I take issue with this, never having flown in an area covered by a LARS unit when the service is available, I don't see how I will ever get familiar with PARS procedures! Only time I was ever within an area covered by LARS, the service was shut!

In the same para, there is a reference to ATSUs instructing pilots to 'standby and wait and failing to return' [in a timely manner]. There is one South coast ATSU that is notorious for this, which carries far less traffic than others that manage to provide an excellent service (such as one to the east of Glasgow ;) ). However, this is not a witchhunt - just pointing out differences in service.

Overall, Problem Statement 1 and most of the recommendations encapsulate the issues I have on LARS nicely.

7.3 (P25) Maps & Charts
Strongly support Problem Statement 2 and related suggestions - Problem 1 is also good.

The subject of AICs and NOTAMs has already been discussed to death elsewhere, but most of the suggestions are fully endorsed.

Great suggestions on PPL/IR + moves towards GPS acceptance!

One suggestion that I maybe would have is to gather all the problems / proposed solutions into a database / spreadsheet and assign priority levels to them + difficulty assessments + target resolution dates, so that the CAA can sort out the important things that are readily achievable with minimum effort / risk, whilst planning for the other important but 'more difficult' tasks.

Once again, well done on a great report - hope you manage to get some holiday before your next assignment!

I still think that PPRuNe should have had a mention somewhere (other than oblique references to 'other user Web forums' ;) )

Hopefully this may trigger some further discussion on the 'On Track' Web site Discussion Forum (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/).