AlanM,
"All this molly-coddleing has got to stop!"
Totally agree. It is time that the assumption that controllers or the system, have no part in an airspace infringement by GA flights has to stop.
Especially when dealing with units who use radar, there are a number of standards which are often ignored and that is seldom picked up in a resultant investigation.
Example:
Aircraft are entitled to ask for and be given navigational assistance from radar units if that unit requires them to divert from their planned track.
Pilots must not be shy about asking for navigational assistance from any radar equipped ATC units if required. If that means a request for radar vectors then so be it.
Of course, a zone crossing will only be refused when the controller is working to maximum capacity already (otherwise a crossing clearance would be issued). This means that such a request for vectors to remain clear will either be;
a) Given - with a possible reduction in capacity within said airspace - ie possible delays; or
b) Refused - with the posibility that airspace could be infringed causing safety issues and severe delays or worse.
Knowing the UK system, the most likely response from many units is b) (usually siting commercial reasons). However, having your request for assistance refused and recorded on tape should the unfortunate infringement happen will clearly (for want of a better term), spread the blame more appropriately.
Yes VFR flights should do better when navigating. However, if pilots are not taught how to do it during basic training, they are unlikely to learn later.
However, what the system ignores is that a flight calling up for zone transit south to north over LCY could be VFR, could be IFR or coluld be VFR who changes to IFR at some stage or could be IFR expecting to be VFR for the transit or could be.........VFR but actually IFR or..........God knows what.
Unfortunately, not only do pilots not understand the system but controllers do not either and the system makes it impossible for some licensed pilots to operate within the rules laid down or licenses pilots knowing that they can not act as licensed and are unaware of the rules. An example being the minimum overflight level for the London TMA. If I remember correctly it is FL90. Thus IFR flights should not plan to overfly that airspace enroute at less than FL90. VFR flights should plan to remain outside. However, how can an IMC rated commercial pilot ever get to FL90 for a transit.........they can't. Thus they are operating in cramped airspace with navigation aids that do not provide sufficient accuracy to ensure the flight remains outside controlled airspace at all times and with ATC units that expect them to DR round some complicated piece of airspace in IMC.
In summary, other countries do not have the same level of infringements. One can cross the French FIR at SITET and climb to FL115 VFR and remain there all the way to the south of France with a radar service, handovers, traffic information etc. Now tell me that the airspace 5nm, 10nm or even 15nm north of SITET is more busy that the airspace south of SITET!n Or tell me that the weather is better 5nm south of SITET compared to 5nm north of SITET.
Different attitude, different service level is all I perceive.
In summary, it is a system wide failure. ONTRACK did some good work and is still largely ignored.
Regards,
DFC