EGSS zone intrusion

[Epsilon minus]

Apparently a solo student on a nav ex from Lincolnshire strayed into the zone causing mayhem. The press may have got hold of this story. Is there any truth in it?

[SwanFIS]

Whether this report is true or not the high number of CAS infringements we are experiencing these days is causing concern for all agencies controlling CAS, be it zones, TMAs or airways. As soon as rogue traffic enters CAS the controller concerned has to do his best to maintain the required separation from that unpredictable target often disrupting his traffic plan. Because safety is still the number one priority the departures and arrival at an airport may be suspended for a period or climb and descent clearances amended in the TMAs and airways to provide or maintain safety margins.

Concerted efforts are now being made to find out the number of airspace infringements and the true scale of the problem today with the aim of implementing strategies to reduce their number and thereby increasing safety for all involved.

One suggestion is to publish CAS infringements reports duly sanitised to remove identifying features so that we can all learn from them and be more aware of this problem. Any thoughts on the matter?

[BOAC]

Link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=201084)

[SwanFIS]

Thanks BOAC :ok: I didn't realise that Epsilon was referring to that incident.......still a hot topic though.

[Vlad the Impaler]

He wasn't. there was another...............................

[BOAC]

Vlad - it would be a great help for SWANFIS - if I linked to the incorrect thread - if you could provide some more info rather than an 'enigmatic' post as there is a 'focus' on zone intrusion at the moment.

[zkdli]

BOAC,
He probably was not being so enigmatic. Infringements happen around the LTMA airfields and airspace so regularly that he probably can't remember which one is which.

The total since APRIL 1st is now over 200 and is going up every day!

When will SRG do something about it?

[SwanFIS]

zkdli, yes they do and that was why I was interested.

NATS have set up a working group to try and get an idea of the true scale of the problem that we are faced with. A while ago the CAA published the Fly On Track report that had a number of recommendations, some good some not so good, but left it at that. Although the AIWG does still exist NATS have taken the initiative and are now looking at varied ways to reduce the number and severity of CAS infringements and thereby increase safety.

There will be a concerted effort in the new year to contact pilots and make them more aware of the problems and disruption that infringements can cause. This will be done through visits to airfields by ATCOs, articles in magazines (Flyer is one of them) and hopefully a CD along the lines of the very successful Level Bust production.

Any suggestions either posted here or pmd to me will be greatly appreciated by all concerned.:ok:

David R

[Epsilon minus]

I believe the aircraft was a light piston military trainer T67. it happened this week. Not the incident that BOAC refers to. PM me if you wish and I will be happy to tell you what I've been told.

[Deadcalm]

I know for a fact that an Infringements CD has been produced at LTCC.

This details a total of 28 selected infringement incidents at all the major TC airfields during 2004/5, and includes radar examples (obviously depersonalised - only the month, year and affected zone are identified), and has been produced to the same high standard as the TRUCE, Safety Kiosk, and Level Best presentations those at LTCC are all familiar with....

I was under the impression that this presentation would be touring airfields and flying clubs this winter, led by selected TC ATCOs.

[Minesapint]

I know that this is being looked into by the systems guys. Its fairly easy to model airspace in computer terms so it could be possible to fix. However comma! How many are none squawkers, how many are on 7000 with no Mode C? We need altitude data for an accurate assessment of where in 3D a flight is. Not easy!

[SwanFIS]

Deadcalm, yes you are correct TC have produced a CD that will be presented by ATCOs at GA airfields.

It willl not, however, only be TC guys talking about the problem in the south east going out and about with this presentation. An infringement has the same impact on ATC operations and safety wherever it happens in the UK so a number of other ATC units will use this as a means of graphically presenting and explaining to pilots the problems that GA CAS infringements cause. This is a UK wide problem and is being targeted as such.

[viva77]

Just like to highlight the fact that it is NATS that is taking this initiative and therefore targeting areas where infringement is a problem to airspace under its control.

Shame the CAA is lagging behind.

[mad_jock]

I don't think any pilot would on purpose infringe any controlled airspace on purpose unless an emergency of, if this happened and that failed etc.

How to stop it I don't know. The lessons in a PPL are already full, you have people with 3 xcountry trips going solo. And even the "good" students have brain farts and head off in the wrong direction.

GPS is frowned apon and not allowed to be used on solo x-countrys. This could be changed by the CAA, a gps capable of Zone warnings would help.

A special # for solo x-country students? Might forwarn the ATCO that a potential rogue is about.

The mode C debate is a problem due to some highly qualified indviduals not turning it on due to "police actions" if they cock up, to aircraft which haven't got it fitted or can't be bothered to get it fixed when it breaks.

The yanks have got mode charlie zones where you need to have C to go into it, still uncontrolled and don't have to talk to anyone . They can and do inforce it with a FAA bod waiting for you when you get on the ground if you keep mum and don't talk to anyone.


MJ

[almost professional]

Sorry mad jock but its not just a low hours/trainee problem
time and time again we encounter people that climb out of Nottingham Tollerton, turn south and climb and then think about asking for Zone transit-by which time they are normally on the extended centerline!
if anything the low hours pilots in the area Know to call first
is there a correlation between the infringements down south and the percieved lack of access?

[SwanFIS]

"Is there a correlation between the infringements down south and the perceived lack of access?"

Almost professional, there certainly are "choke points" and a fair smattering of Class A down here that does exacerbate the problem but does not fully account for the imbalance in figures.

As in the case you mention it is not just the low hours pilot who infringes, the causes are many and varied, and it is that very fact that makes the task of reducing them complex.

[mad_jock]

More currency then than low hours?

It takes very few hours to keep a SEP valid. And unless the person needs a check with an examiner. The required 1 hour with an instructor flight isn't long enough to do any real nav if you do the other stuff your meant to do.

You can have valid PPL SEP holders with less than 30 hours in 5 years and no check on there navigating flying about.

MJ

Edit to add the PPL bit is a bit misleading it can be any lic type. It could be a commercial pilot who is not current flying VFR who makes the mistake

[Irish Steve]

As I've commented in the "uninvited guests" thread, it isn't always the low hours PPL's that get it wrong, there are other reasons for the failures.

I'd go as far as to say that GPS should be much more encouraged, as should a more reasonable approach to GA IFR and instrument ratings, which might mean better qualified and less dangerous pilots. There is a caveat that the GPS needs to be a good quality aviation GPS, with a user interface that means it can be operated easily in the air, but that's another issue for another thread in a different forum.

I've done both European and American training, and the FAA Instrument rating, if correctly taught, (and in the LA basin it has to be, as there's so much IFR traffic around the place) is every bit as valid as a CAA IR, in practical terms.

OK, the standards for the test might be slightly different, but the underlying requirement is to be able to get the aircraft safely and accurately from point A to point B in IFR without putting others at risk.

Yes, students have to learn to fly VFR, so they can handle the thing if everthing goes belly up and the instruments can't be relied on, but at the same time, if they had a better understanding of how to use the IFR instruments to navigate at an earlier stage of the syllabus, then there's a better chance that they'd not end up where they're not supposed to be.

I still have bad dreams about that flight 20 years ago, and while some of that was outside of my control, a different structure to the training might have helped me prevent what became a nightmare flight from being so badly wrong.

To solve this problem needs input from NATS, from CAA, and from the training organisations, and it may well need some fundamental changes to the way training is done. Given the way that GA is changing anyway, is that such a bad thing?

[Shagster]

In the Luton - Stansted - Heathrow triangle, a lack of LARS contributes to infringements. A lot of visiting ac to Elstree, Denham, Booker etc etc negotiating fairly complex (to a new pilot) airspace boundaries tend to be the culprits. Don't know what the answer is though as none of these units have the capacity to offer this service (?).
I also understand that quite a few "minor" zone infringements are not recorded, as filling in the paper work would become a full time job! So maybe the statistics are higher than actually published.

[blondie118]

As an essex and luton controller you can but ask for a service and see what they say, if we have the spare capacity we will help.

I would urge pilots that are in any doubt of thier position in that area to call one of the units. Whether it be essex, luton or thames.:ok:

[AlanM]

.......or D&D!!

Believe me, the figures are at last 50% worse than is said, as there is not always time to trace the aircraft.

2 weeks ago an unknown was spotted 2nm loitering at 2000 ft inside the LCTR. The aircraft was tracked down via another local ATC unit, identified and asked to call.

Turned out to be a professional operator who was recceing the LZ inside the zone - but thought it was OK as it was "just inside".

Unbelievable

[SwanFIS]

Blondie....."I would urge pilots that are in any doubt of their position in that area to call one of the units. Whether it be essex, luton or thames."

Alan M ......."or D&D!!"

I agree whole wholeheartedly, it would help immensely if the current perception of ATC as airspace policeman could be changed to that of airspace managers.

If pilots could only be convinced of the truth that a controllers/FISOs number one priority is SAFETY closely followed by SAFETY. We are not concerned with litigation but the safe conduct of flight, both commercial and GA within our area of responsibility. If the ingrained view of an over authoritarian ATC service could be changed pilots would be less reluctant to call us and many of these infringements would just not happen.

If unsure of your position call a local ATC unit or D&D and help yourself and other airspace users and providers before a situation turns into an incident. If you just want to clarify the dimensions of CAS you are adjacent to call us at London Information and we will assist in any way we can.:ok:

[Aussie Andy]

As a low-hrs (<250) PPL, I find it embarrassing to read about all these infringements and hope to God it never happens to me!! My gut reaction is one of horror and that there is no excuse!! However, I suppose there are probably a few factors that might lead to infringements of CAS:
Maybe it is something to do with instruction, and where you train... I did my PPL with BAFC at Wycombe and the fact of our close proximity to CAS was constantly drummed in, and we were certainly taught early on to use radio navaids (OK, not GPS which I agree should be in the syllabus) in addition to DR to help avoid CAS, e.g. setup a radial from a VOR and "make sure you stay to the left of it", or "keep that NDB to your right" etc. as a way of triple checking that you weren't about to drift into CAS. I guess people learning further afield who don't have to do this sort of thing in their early dual Navex's might not as well prepared when venturing out in their solo Navex's, or on their own post-PPL?

Maybe some instructors are just more proactive in drumming the need for situational awareness (not just traffic, but also terrain and airspace) into their students?

Everyone should use GPS to enhance their awareness of airspace boundaries - cheap models only cost the equivalenty of a couple of hours flying time!

Maybe the lack of LARS in some areas is also to blame?Shagster makes a good point:In the Luton - Stansted - Heathrow triangle, a lack of LARS contributes to infringements. A lot of visiting ac to Elstree, Denham, Booker etc etc negotiating fairly complex (to a new pilot) airspace boundaries tend to be the culprits.I would love to know whether infringements are less frequent in the US (where flight-following is provided), or whether there is a difference in this country in frequency of infringements when under LARS or when not? Maybe safety benefits through reduction of infringements could be used to justify increased provision of ATSOCAS? At the end of the day, the airspace configuration in SE England is pretty complex compared to most places PPLs might fly, and so it would seem to me to make good sense to recognise this with support of additional ATSOCAS.

Andy :ok:

[Mister Geezer]

I think the penny has dropped at the CAA that PPL Nav standards drop once they get their licence, which is why if a SEP rating has to be revalidated by test or renewed then a Navigation element is now a mandatory item in the flight test. In the past the General Handling items (stall, circuits, practiced forced landings) were only required to be covered. However if a PPL does the required flying during the rating validity period then the only 'training' that he/she needs is a 1-hour flight with an instructor - the content of which is up to the instructor's discretion. So no navigation could not be practiced for years!

As a PPL instructor and examiner, I have the feeling that there will always be CAS intrusions with PPLs and students. We need to cut the level at which they are happening. I think Mad Jock was hinting at a special SSR code for solo cross-country flights, which I think, is a great idea. Would instantly show the controller who they are dealing with and possibly allow the alarm bells to ring earlier as well?

Most PPLs now invest in a GPS once they get their PPL and I did as well! A GPS can bee a godsend if it is used correctly however if can also lead a confident and capable PPL into a CAS intrusion! 'Garbage in garbage out' applies very much here and the wrong Lat/Long of Auntie Mary's grass strip could be lethal. However the CAA are not doing themselves any favours when it comes to GPS usage, since the topic seems to be swept under the carpet! On the diversion section of the PPL skill test a GPS can be used however the candidate is only allowed to use 'raw data' (Lat/Long readout only) which is not much use. I personally feel that can lead to a recipe for a mistake since PPLs should be guided towards making GPS systems as simple and user friendly as possible. All waypoints in a GPS should be entered into the system as a Radial/Distance from a Radio Beacon since that will cut down the chance of mis-entering a waypoint instead of number crunching a Lat/Long into the system. Another topic of GPS usage that is interesting to note is that Joe Bloggs can buy a GPS and use it with no training and we all know that we all love to take a gadget out of its box and play with it without reading the instructions! Poor GPS training has to be a factor in this item being used incorrectly. In my airline job we are given training in how to use the FMS so why doesn't this apply to PPL flying?

For the ATCOs... remember that PPLs need to do a very small amount of flying to keep their rating valid. In some cases you could have a gap of over a year without flying and a PPL could still be perfectly legal to fly! Looking at it in that perspective you could have an average PPL become very rusty over time and jump into his plane and fly!

For those ATCOs on the Director frequencies, do you only consider a squawking aircraft to be a CAS intrusion? If you had a primary contact that entered your zone is that still regarded as a CAS bust? I am not sure what radar filters you have in place but are very slow moving contacts removed from radar? Do you have to give separation against a primary contact if one strayed onto your final approach for example? Could a slow moving lorry or a flock of birds be picked up at LATCC?

The debate on this topic could go on for a long time!

[Aussie Andy]

Mister Geezer, you make some excellent points. So no navigation could not be practiced for years!I hadn't thought of that - of course you're right, there may be a few people who bimble locally in the main and only occasionally venture further afield, and who would thus neither gain the experience or ever be re-checked for Nav skills if they renewed (as I think most do) by flying requisite hrs + 1hr with instructor. I would hope that there would only be a small number people who'd fall into this category, but still...

I think most PPLs would agree re- the need for GPS training during the PPL course - the trap is that it seems so easy to use, and of course they can be: if you are diligent and have a hand-held unit which you can practice with the thing on the ground in "simulator" mode etc you will know what buttons to push etc once you are in the air with it. But its the practical use in the air, avoiding airspace, leveraging the information available such as groundspeed etc that could be taught during Nav phase and would surely provide a safer crop of new pilots. Of course we should still first learn DR as the foundation nav skillset, but why can't GPS just be treated as another of the radio Navaids!?All waypoints in a GPS should be entered into the system as a Radial/Distance from a Radio BeaconExcellent idea - I do this when planning so that a) I can sanity check my waypoints by comparing to other navaids; and b) when I fly an aircraft that has a panel mounted GPS I can much more easily and accurately enter the waypoints before departure, avoiding the risk of entereing Lat/Lon incorrectly which is very easy to do (if using the handheld I tend to upload the plan from the PC to the GPS before leaving for the airfield).

Andy :ok:

[rodan]

do you only consider a squawking aircraft to be a CAS intrusion? If you had a primary contact that entered your zone is that still regarded as a CAS bust?
It depends on the vertical profile of the CAS in question. If there is class G either above or below the CAS, and an unknown primary contact appears within the lateral limits of the CAS, we are entitled to treat the contact as being outside CAS, (as it ought to be), unless we have reason to believe that the aircraft is lost, radio failed, or if we have other reasons to suspect it is within CAS. So, in theory, we can ignore it. In practice, caution is exercised, especially when one gets a feeling in one's water.

If, however, the CAS in question stretches unbroken from the ground up to TMA airspace above, then there is no question that the contact is an infringer, and separation is applied/expletives uttered/tracing action taken/etc.

I am not sure what radar filters you have in place but are very slow moving contacts removed from radar? Do you have to give separation against a primary contact if one strayed onto your final approach for example? Could a slow moving lorry or a flock of birds be picked up at LATCC?
I'll leave this to the LTCC folks, but they use 'plot extracted' primary radar (highly processed) which cuts out more of the spurious and slower moving contacts than the analogue radar displays that most of us use in other places. Sometimes on analogue displays a flock of birds is very hard to distinguish from, say, a microlight, and I personally tend not to let the blips merge in that case.

[WorkingHard]

We all make mistakes occasionally but thankfully little is of life threatening scenario. We all of us try and obey the rules and expect and generally receive a first class service from ATC in all it's forms. GA generally has no idea of the work load of controllers but there is a perception that ATC often just wants GA to "Keep clear of controlled airspace" This may be quite correct and legitimate and uncleared a/c must remain clear. However maybe, just maybe, the very few controllers who believe in a "sanitised" airspace (sanitised of GA that is) should be offered further training toward helping all aircraft in the air and not just CAT. Please dont shoot me down it is genuinely meant to be constructive.

[Regular Cappuccino]

Almost Professional is right about the infringers from Tollerton, but in fairness, the problem lies not with based pilots, who are very aware of the airspace boundaries, but with visitors, who we must suppose, have not given sufficient thought to the height and proximity of the CTA bases when planning their departure.

Personally, even if someone is staying below the CTA, but still following the well trodden NOT - LE route, I'd like them to call, since in 'plan view' they may still present a potential confliction to inbound IFR traffic, and it then gives me the opportunity to identify them & verify the mode C so that I can safely disregard them with respect to my IFR traffic.