Flying through a NOTAM'd display area
"What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units?"
A limey buddy of mine had a Jungmeister, and the amount of RF the Siemens radial generated made any sort of radio installation impossible, so he used to fly around keeping a good look-out. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to fly without a radio in uncontrolled airspace?
A limey buddy of mine had a Jungmeister, and the amount of RF the Siemens radial generated made any sort of radio installation impossible, so he used to fly around keeping a good look-out. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to fly without a radio in uncontrolled airspace?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A limey buddy of mine had a Jungmeister, and the amount of RF the Siemens radial generated made any sort of radio installation impossible, so he used to fly around keeping a good look-out. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to fly without a radio in uncontrolled airspace?
FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.
"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."
What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?
"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."
What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.
"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."
What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?
"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."
What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?
Now let's imagine there was some magical, mystical device which allowed pilots to communicate with somebody on the ground and this person had a sorcerous device which showed him where other aircraft were, which altitude they were flying and in which direction, then that person on the ground could warn the pilot about aircraft coming close. Wouldn't that be a fantastic improvement to air safety, supplementing See and Avoid?
Given the two options, flying with Mark I eyeball alone or using wizardry to assist you stay free of collisions with other aircraft, which is the wiser choice (assuming you have those options....)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not Chickenhouse but I share his views, that flying in Class G airspace without radio contact, although legal, is not very wise
Given the two options, flying with Mark I eyeball alone or using wizardry to assist you stay free of collisions with other aircraft, which is the wiser choice (assuming you have those options....)
Given the two options, flying with Mark I eyeball alone or using wizardry to assist you stay free of collisions with other aircraft, which is the wiser choice (assuming you have those options....)
I would like to add my vote against unnecessary chit-chat in the open FIR. I for one always listen to an appropriate frequency and use a listening squawk if available. Otherwise I talk to as few people as possible.
IMHO GA pilots cannot assume to always get free radar and/or information services in the future, humans sitting in dark rooms with a VHF radio and (maybe) a radar screen are too expensive. If we decide to worry about bumping into each other then perhaps transponders/TCAS and/or flarm etc should become more compulsory.
As a related aside why do London information not have a listening squawk? The frequency is nearly unusable on a sunny saturday.
Ignoring NOTAMS is not so sensible.
IMHO GA pilots cannot assume to always get free radar and/or information services in the future, humans sitting in dark rooms with a VHF radio and (maybe) a radar screen are too expensive. If we decide to worry about bumping into each other then perhaps transponders/TCAS and/or flarm etc should become more compulsory.
As a related aside why do London information not have a listening squawk? The frequency is nearly unusable on a sunny saturday.
Ignoring NOTAMS is not so sensible.
Last edited by Romeo Tango; 21st Mar 2017 at 08:30.
So Steve 6443, its a beautiful VFR day, perfect for a local 'bimble' (as I believe you say over there). As you taxi out your coms go Tango Uniform. You don't need your radio for any part of your proposed flight - do you consider flying in Class G sans radio sufficiently 'unwise' to cancel the flight? Genuinely curious.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now let's imagine there was some magical, mystical device which allowed pilots to communicate with somebody on the ground and this person had a sorcerous device which showed him where other aircraft were, which altitude they were flying and in which direction, then that person on the ground could warn the pilot about aircraft coming close. Wouldn't that be a fantastic improvement to air safety, supplementing See and Avoid?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
It is obviously still possible to obtain a "Traffic service" in UK's Class G airspace, where available (there are surprisingly large gaps in LARS coverage).
But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:
Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.
So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.
But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:
Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.
So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And therein lies the snag - until Mode C transponders are mandatory TCAS can only provide a dangerous false sense of security.
There is no substitute for the Mk1 eyeball.
There is no substitute for the Mk1 eyeball.
It is obviously still possible to obtain a "Traffic service" in UK's Class G airspace, where available (there are surprisingly large gaps in LARS coverage).
But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:
Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.
So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.
But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:
Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.
So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.
Poor radar performance? Put it u/s until it's fixed.
Radar suppression? Depends what you are suppressing, but you can always de-select the suppressors.
Radar clutter? Anoprop or bird activity. Neither should show if the AMTI threshold speed is set correctly.
Much as I disliked the Raytheon ASR10, it was SO processed that the only snag was sometimes the processing produced a hole with no radar cover at all, otherwise anyone who tells you it suffers from the above 3 things obviously has never seen raw radar.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Chevvron, I'm very aware of the true reason for the "limited" prefix. I sometimes try to guess "the theme of the day".
The Ancient Geek, you obviously missed the first part of my statement where I said that lookout remains paramount. It would be more correct if you said that TCAS "might" give a dangerous false sense of security. However, when used correctly, it definitely enhances lookout, just as an ATC traffic service can, "limited" or otherwise. A trap for the unwary is to over-concentrate on trying to visually acquire something the TCAS has displayed, at the expense of maintaining a full lookout scan for other, non-displaying contacts.
But the same goes for a radar service whilst flying in Class G, or any other airspace for that matter. I don't know what your experience of the use of TCAS actually is, but from almost two decades of single pilot ops flying with it, mainly flown in Class G and the previous two decades plus flying without it, I have learned to use it properly and I wouldn't want to be without it, given the choice. Many who think the human eye alone is better obviously don't have much practical experience of the use of the equipment, or haven't understood how to use it.
The Ancient Geek, you obviously missed the first part of my statement where I said that lookout remains paramount. It would be more correct if you said that TCAS "might" give a dangerous false sense of security. However, when used correctly, it definitely enhances lookout, just as an ATC traffic service can, "limited" or otherwise. A trap for the unwary is to over-concentrate on trying to visually acquire something the TCAS has displayed, at the expense of maintaining a full lookout scan for other, non-displaying contacts.
But the same goes for a radar service whilst flying in Class G, or any other airspace for that matter. I don't know what your experience of the use of TCAS actually is, but from almost two decades of single pilot ops flying with it, mainly flown in Class G and the previous two decades plus flying without it, I have learned to use it properly and I wouldn't want to be without it, given the choice. Many who think the human eye alone is better obviously don't have much practical experience of the use of the equipment, or haven't understood how to use it.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 13th Mar 2017 at 18:16.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 65
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for who pays for it, the infrastructure is paid by fuel duties, AFAIK.....
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, gripe number 2.... the number of operators demanding you 'remain OCAS' or refusing any sort of service other than Chocolate Teapot because of 'Controller Workload'. I was flying Sunday, the first truly beautiful day for flying in a long time, the skies were full of flying machines yet the controllers looked out for us.....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.
Good airmanship is about using one's brain. There are times when it would make sense to talk to an airfield, perhaps when a tract of airspace is notammed but not restricted, but there are others when it would be totally counterproductive. For example, crossing a busy training airfield at 4K agl and adding to a very bust frequency with your details which essentially tell everyone that you are no threat is, I would argue, poor airmanship. There are no hard rules for what constitutes good airmanship. It's about awareness and thinking about how you can contribute to safety - sometimes that means keeping quiet.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first 3 points are bollix; some controllers who say any or all of them are just covering their backs in case of an incident.
Poor radar performance? Put it u/s until it's fixed.
Radar suppression? Depends what you are suppressing, but you can always de-select the suppressors.
Radar clutter? Anoprop or bird activity. Neither should show if the AMTI threshold speed is set correctly.
Much as I disliked the Raytheon ASR10, it was SO processed that the only snag was sometimes the processing produced a hole with no radar cover at all, otherwise anyone who tells you it suffers from the above 3 things obviously has never seen raw radar.
Poor radar performance? Put it u/s until it's fixed.
Radar suppression? Depends what you are suppressing, but you can always de-select the suppressors.
Radar clutter? Anoprop or bird activity. Neither should show if the AMTI threshold speed is set correctly.
Much as I disliked the Raytheon ASR10, it was SO processed that the only snag was sometimes the processing produced a hole with no radar cover at all, otherwise anyone who tells you it suffers from the above 3 things obviously has never seen raw radar.
Often controllers who are working today are required to say such things, depending on factors such as radar source, aircraft location etc. Required, as in they are mandated to do so by procedure following hazard analysis.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic Service only, due to you not being one of our inbound bizjets and me having no interest in you whatsoever, other than to send you somewhere you don't want to go, in order to facilitate one of our inbound bizjets.
