Top Nav ??

[Wide-Body]

A good rumour heard today.

The competitors in "Top Nav" have had 12 MORs filed against them by Southampton ATC for Navigational errors !!!!!! :E

Thanks guys for giving us something to chortle at after all the bad news last weekend at Waltham.

An yes I know it only a matter of time before I cock up again. But I do find it quite funny.

Regards to all

Wide

[turniphead]

??? 'MOR'
what's that?

[eyeinthesky]

MOR: Mandatory Occurence Report

Filed by ATC or Aircrew when certain events occur. They range from an aircraft accident to a level bust to a loss of separation to an airspace infringement to a burst tyre on landing (and many other events).

In some cases you HAVE to file one (eg aircraft accident), and in some cases there is discretion involved. For example, if someone strays into the edge of your zone but doesn't cause a major upset to other traffic, you might decide that a short chat on the R/T or a request to phone in for a 'debrief' after landing will suffice. If you have had to take avoiding action on him with other traffic, then an MOR will probably be required.

I don't know the details of this event, but I imagine that if Solent had a stream of people on incorrect tracks or infringing the airspace or whatever, they might feel that MOR was the only way to ensure the problems were not repeated.

MORs should not be seen a method of punishment, but unfortunately some people seem to use them for that.

[turniphead]

Thanks for that....
Still confused though. The word "mandatory" is clear. So how come MOR's are at the discretion of an ATC unit?
If you mean that level busts and zone infringements are MOR's and that whether or not you get repored to the CAA depends solely upon the duty controllers mood at the time? Does not sound satisfactory of fair to me.

[robin]

Eyeinthesky

Seems strange, though, that 12 participants in a nav comp receive an MOR for a bust.

It would be interesting to know the details as to whether or not the infringements were marginal or just plain careless

Not being the greatest navigator in the world, I am very nervous of this sort of thing, and to be caught out when the ATCO is in a bad mood does worry me.

[eyeinthesky]

Put it another way:

A zone infringement technically requires a Mandatory Occurrence Report. If the controller feels that the other methods I have outlined would be more effective, then an MOR would not be filed.

So: We should file EVERYTHING and thus EVERY zone bust, however minor, would end up on the CAA's desk with all the potential follow-up that means. But the 'mood' of the controller (as I put it) might well prevent that.

Does that make you less nervous?

[robin]

I understand what you are saying, and I guess the process of an MOR is an unwanted chore, but to be reliant on the mood of an ATCO seems to make it a lottery.

Still, when I was stopped by traffic cops recently, the same thing applies there - I was lucky and was let off with a warning.

Guess I'll just have to polish up my nav skills

[Stripholderloader]

Not a rumour Nigel :D

You couldn't make this one up. You could understand one making a mistake, but twelve ! :D :D :D :D
Anyway I musn't tempt providence, especially as I am flying down that way tomorrow :uhoh:

Regards
SHL

PS Anyone MOR'd care to comment

[FormationFlyer]

Interesting.

Having taken part in TopNav myself, and not being one of the twelve I can assure you...it would appear that there are a few issues here.

- The competition organiser who I spoke to on the day said that Solent had phoned complaining about 40 aircraft busting the airspace. Whats interesting is that only 27 crews flew that day.

- In the same conversation the controller admitted that he hadnt talked to any of those aircraft and did not have any registration details - only that they had Farnborough transponder codes. Competitors on the day had a set transponder code - so anything other than that it wasnt a competition aircraft.

- The same controller said that they had contacted farnborough who knew nothing about it all - incorrect - the competition had negotiated transponder codes and movements with farnborough - generally we were on farnboroughs freq maintaining a listening watch only - except for a MATZ penetrations.

Now Im not saying that Solent were not correct in saying there were 12 busts - but all of these would have had to have been travelling from the S to the N, with competition transponder codes. It should be remembered that not all aircraft travelling S to N in that area are necessarily competitors.

----

I personnally would suggest that rather than jumping to conclusions about who was and wasnt a competitor you allow time for the CAA to analyse radar traces and ensure that ALL aircraft involved had departed FROM and arrived back AT White Waltham.

Without this evidence continued reporting of '12 topnav competitors busted solent airspace' smacks of tabloid journalism to the extent of trying to bring down what is an excellent competition.

----

So....before we continue to blacken the name via hearsay - lets have the evidence please!

[Wide-Body]

Hi Formation Flyer

This is the "RUMOUR" network, not the "totally substantiated in triplicate signed by the CAA and a high court judge" network. Lets be honest it is not a life or death event just a little alleged egg on face fun.

It was meant to be a slightly ironic post you know the kind where a little joshing and good humour goes on.

If you want fact. Then it was a FACT at the time of the post Solent called WW and informed them of "TOPNAV" aircraft BUST the SOLENT ZONE. (my best tabloid journo headline writing). Now we all know this is bollox I am sure the NO competitor put a foot wrong (horizontally or vertically) but there was an ironic element in the story. You know Top NAV gets lost bit. (I hate having to explain the joke)

Now FF go and take a chill pill, life is a bit short to be taken too seriously. If you were more perceptive to recent events at Waltham then you might agree.

Regards to all especially all the TOP NAV competitors (Whom I genuinely hold in great esteem)

Wide

[Flash0710]

If you hold your hand up and it makes an L........................;)

[eharding]

I personnally would suggest that rather than jumping to conclusions about who was and wasnt a competitor you allow time for the CAA to analyse radar traces and ensure that ALL aircraft involved had departed FROM and arrived back AT White Waltham.

Point of order - didn't at least one entrant elect not to
return to WW? (no information expressed or implied that
this may, or may not, been one of the 12 that did, or did
not, impinge upon controlled airspace that may, or may not,
exist in the Solent area).

Ed

[FormationFlyer]

Wide-Body – I hope I don’t need a chill pill...merely stopping things getting out of hand by a bit of information closer to the issue...

Re: WW events recently. :sad: I am very much aware of them. Given I will be entering the BAeA events next year myself, I learned of the events with great sadness and my condolences to all friends and family of a well respected aviator, who I didn’t have the fortune to meet, and wish I had.

--
eharding -

Yes. I believe that is the case (and point taken). :confused: Strange really I don’t know why people do that. Every crew is given an 'IF' envelope - coupled with a radio call to Farnborough should be enough to get them out of whatever problem they found themselves in - assuming it was simply a navigation issue.

Personally I ran round worrying about oil temperature - at one point re-planning in flight for a different airspeed as we reduced power significantly to try an avoid worsening problems - however it looks like this most probably a gauge issue.

I can only assume that they either had more serious problems and had to divert, or found the competition a little too challenging and were afraid to return.

I feel the later issue, if correct, would be the greatest sadness. If entering a competition like this you find yourself a little out of your depth then return, put your hand up and I can assure you a friendly face will help - there are a number of instructors around, and even other very experienced pilots who would willing help so that the following year the crew in question could successfully complete the course.

----

Amongst the competitors on the day there was 1 BPPA team member, and David Cockburn from the CAA, I know at least of 1 other BPPA British team member who has yet to fly the course. The Top Nav competition is flown by many pilots of great and varying skill levels, one crew consisted of a pilot + student pilot. So you have the full spectrum here.

I urge ALL pilots who would giggle at the irony of it - (including me - and I was part of it!) and yes if it does turn out to be true it would be extremely ironic. :D if not a little embarrassing for the competition - to a degree. :O

The whole point of Top Nav was to help pilots avoid such incursions and encourage better navigation - along the way mistakes will be made - lessons learnt.

Now...here’s the challenge - for all those who scoff at pilots who allegedly cant get it right - I assume Ill be seeing you all at the competition next year!! :ok: Or better still how about a BPPA competition this year - they are open to everyone - its not a closed club – You’ll find the navigation is much harder than you think - its not a case of having 2 hours the night before to plan it out....and its very hard to draw straight lines bouncing down the runway at WW!!! :ooh:

[Aussie Andy]

I entered it a few years ago - great fun and highly recommended! My only advice is: don't use those silly navigation thingys you are supposed to pin to the map as they are top-boll*cks! My co-pilot / navigator inadvertently pinned it to the WRONG VOR (!) and it was only later that we realised our error (of course we failed the navex!) - but it dawned on me that there is not the equivalent of identing the VOR with morse to stop you making such a gross error! OK, I admit it was a stupid mistake...!

Still a great a event, and I hope to do it again... using more "normal" navigation methods.

But I agree with what is said above - at headline level at least it is a great joke to think that a gaggle of TopNav competitors got lost and busted the zone!!! ;)


Andy :ok:

[turniphead]

"You’ll find the navigation is much harder than you think - its not a case of having 2 hours the night before to plan it out....and its very hard to draw straight lines bouncing down the runway at WW!!! "

Hey Formation Flyer --it is not that bad. BPPA would welcome a few PPruNers . Fly solo or dual with all route/map preparation done well before takeoff!

[FormationFlyer]

Indeed - BPPA comp at RAF Marham this coming Sunday!! Ill be there...bringing a low-time recent PPL holder with me as well...:ok:


Aussie Andy
My only advice is: don\'t use those silly navigation thingys you are supposed to pin to the map as they are top-boll*cks! My co-pilot / navigator inadvertently pinned it to the WRONG VOR (!) and it was only later that we realised our error (of course we failed the navex!) - but it dawned on me that there is not the equivalent of identing the VOR with morse to stop you making such a gross error! OK, I admit it was a stupid mistake...!

er...so the \'silly nav thing\' which has seen me quite happily through the last 7 years BCPL, CPL, and IR as well as being an ivaluable aid as an instructor..is \'top-boll...\'.

Er...yet by your own admission your nav pinned it to the WRONG VOR :O ...with no gross error check available.....other than the NAME of the VOR being written on the MAP and on the WAYPOINT sheet...er....yes...ahem. ;) ident? black & white lettering on paper in front of you not enough eh?! Roll on electronic paper\'s availability so you could put your finger on it and hear the ident so you can check it against the ident written on ...oh yeah...the paper you just pressed...:E

IMO I think VORTrack is a superb bit of kit and I have used it for years. I heartily recommend it.

[Aussie Andy]

VORTrack !!! That's it - I couldn't remember the name :-)

To be fair, we just used it cold without any instruction and in the heat of the competition so it's probably no wonder that we ballsed it up! Interesting to hear someone swear by it, you're the first who's said that to me, but I don't doubt you.

I guess what I really mean is that it was dumb-b*llocks on our part to use the system for the navex! We had mis-understood it was compulsory for TopNav but realised that others weren't all using it after we got going...

Andy :ok:

[FormationFlyer]

LOL

Interestingly I was introduced to a 'roma'? by another crew from my club (we entered 5 this year!).

The idea is its a grid you set up for your map marked up for long/lat intervals such that you can very very quickly with a piece of acetate locate a long/lat - all waypoints in the competition are given in long/lat so it makes it very easy...Ill definitely be making one up!

[FormationFlyer]

Another thought...just to add a nice mix :)

from the NOTAMS:

COM : A)EGHI FROM 05/07/01 11:15 TO 05/10/31 23:59 B1321/05
E) SOLENT RADAR OPR WITH LIMITED SSR. ATS OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE MAY BE LIMITED AT TIMES. ACFT TRAINING WILL BE LIMITED, WITH NO HOLDING AVAILABLE.

:E