Infringement of .. .. .. .. [Archive]

IO540

21st Jun 2006, 12:42

Where did I say that rag and tube types are infringing??? :ugh:

I'd expect "vintage types" to rarely infringe airspace. Most rarely fly and when they do they don't venture very far and stick to the well travelled locality.

Other "rag and tube" types (microlights) generally won't get picked up on radar and when they do there won't be any altitude info so level busts won't be detected.

I'd expect most infringements per hour flown to be done by low time VFR pilots who did their PPL years ago and are not up to date with current developments in flight planning.

I'd also expect high-hour operations to feature prominently, simply because of the extra time they spend airborne. The UK PPL average annual airborne is so appallingly low that people who fly 300-1000 hours per year could well account for a lot of infringements. But the reasons will probably be different; they won't be busting airspace because they couldn't find the M25 :)

'Chuffer' Dandridge

21st Jun 2006, 12:43

The apparent increase in CAS busts wouldnt have anything to do with the increase in the use of GPS would it?

I was horrifed to hear a pilot the other day explaining how to use his new GPS to his mate... "Just need to push the 'Go to' button and it takes you straight there"

Oh dear........:ugh:

RTFM as my instructor used to say

gasax

21st Jun 2006, 13:46

It is very noticeable the high proportion of 'occurences' now being infringements - but with ATC being instructed to report them I suppose it is inevitable. It does make me wonder what the purpose of it is though. The Flyontrack initative seems to have died and gone to heaven in terms of anything useful coming from it so that seems a shame.

Then we have a spate of new areas of CAS where the instigation of the airspace is not synchronised with the routine issue of new charts. Much of that new CAS further squeezes the natural transit routes.

So we seem to have an authority that does not want to learn lessons from a major user survey, that promulgates new airspace that isn't on the charts and forces VFR traffic into more choke points. None of this as a single issue is directly responsible for the busts - but it is scarcely helpful and very much indicative of an authority that believes in 'command and control'.

As for the types that cause them - well the higher the exposure hours are, the greater the number of busts and generally I would agree that on a per hour basis anyone who is 'rusty' must be at greater risk.

But again look at the number of TRAs that are springing up. The police seem to be a major source of them - perhaps they have just discovered it is a great way to ensure there operations do not get coverage from news gathering choppers. And then the class A airspace for HRH and family. None of this makes things any easier.

I spent a while this morning trying to sort out where operation Neptune Warrior would impact on my flying - the answer seems to be 'Scotland', which maybe explains the number of Tornados overflying the strip. But the time it needed to decode line after line of lat and long...
Probably just as well the wind is too strong!

Rod1

21st Jun 2006, 14:39

IO540

“I'd expect "vintage types" to rarely infringe airspace. Most rarely fly and when they do they don't venture very far and stick to the well travelled locality.”

What do you base this on? The average 1940’s aircraft at my local strip visits Europe several times a year and three of them are off to Norway in a few weeks.

Other "rag and tube" types (microlights) generally won't get picked up on radar and when they do there won't be any altitude info so level busts won't be detected.

I think this is completely incorrect. Most “rag and tube” types are SEP and handled by the PFA. The Super Stinker Pitts with its 250hp engine which parks next to me would make a very interesting micro!

Rod1

PPRuNe Radar

21st Jun 2006, 15:00

Just to keep things straight, a 'Level Bust' is not the same as an 'Infringement' (although it might lead to one !!). Both are separate issues and subject to different awareness and action campaigns by NATS and the aviation industry.

A Level Bust is defined as:

A deviation of 300 feet or more from the assigned level

This may take one of three different forms:

1. An aircraft in level flight climbs or descends without clearance

2. An aircraft climbing or descending fails to level off accurately at the correct level (either passing through and continuing the climb or descent, or passing through and then returning to the correct level)

3. An aircraft levelling off at the correct level or altitude, but with an incorrect altimeter setting.

Full information on the Level Best campaign can be found here:

NATS Level Best Website (http://www.levelbust.com/)

FlyOnTrack is probably the best place to go for GA Airspace Infringement Information :

FlyOnTrack (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/)

IO540

21st Jun 2006, 15:59

OK I give up on the definition of "rag and tubes" :O

Can someone come up with data on annual distances travelled by UK based planes, categorised by type?

Fuji Abound

21st Jun 2006, 17:21

I0540 - I didnt think you ever mentioned rag and bone aircraft in the first place - did you :) :) .

Yes, I can tell you how.

Go through G-INFO which will tell you the hours between the last *annuals by type if you are prepared to put the time in. It should given you accurate information albeit over a three year cylce.

Not sure I woudl want to put the work in though :) :) .

Who knows maybe if you wrote to the CAA they would tell you along with the number of new PPL/IRs granted last year, the number of new PPLs, and the number of PPLs or medicals not renewed. If they did and you revealed the inforamtion here, you would of course have to shoot yourself :) :) :) .

High Wing Drifter

21st Jun 2006, 22:49

Where did I say that rag and tube types are infringing???
Not directly, but such comments like:
It's the people that got their PPL years ago and are outside the system but who fly at a low activity level who are most likely to get into this kind of trouble
I suspect a few experienced pilots who fly permit aircraft from unlicensed fields and strips would consider themselves to fit that profile upto the point where you suggest they get into trouble :\

chevvron

22nd Jun 2006, 07:08

GASAX; the only charts not having new airspace are those UK charts not published by the CAA; CAA are the ones you should be using; oh I know Jeppesen VFR GPS charts are cheaper, but they're not subject to UK quality control procedures to ensure their accuracy, and don't have the detail of CAA charts like warnings of cable launch hazards. There was a recent debate in these pages about airspace in Northern Ireland for instance, where (I think) base levels were depicted incorrectly on Jepp 'VFR/GPS' charts.

rustle

22nd Jun 2006, 07:32

GASAX; the only charts not having new airspace are those UK charts not published by the CAA.

That is not true.

The current "CAA" SE-UK 1:500000 chart is not complete. See Luton new airspace for example.

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2006, 07:50

Rustle.

I completely agree with your post and that is why I started this thread :) :) :) .

Chevvron - at least we can suspect you dont read GASIL!

chevvron

22nd Jun 2006, 09:34

I don't read GASIL 'cos I don't qualify to receive it; I was given to understand the new SE UK chart had an annotation stating that it wasn't complete and more airspace was to be notified- you wouldn't get that with Jeppesen charts

IO540

22nd Jun 2006, 09:50

I was given to understand the new SE UK chart had an annotation stating that it wasn't complete and more airspace was to be notified- you wouldn't get that with Jeppesen charts

That's not the whole story.

The CAA updates its charts just once a year (as far as anyone can tell) and a particular edition (say, the current Ed 32 for the 1:500k southern VFR chart) could be on sale in a pilot shop for the whole year. So you could be buying data anything up to say 14-16 months old. And we know 99% of pilots aren't going to wonder about the ais.org.uk site looking for some PDF listing the mistakes and updates...

Same with the electronic charts which the CAA sells to Memory Map. They don't change either, within a particular edition number. That is criminal - it's electronic data and it being bang up to date would create an incentive for pilots to use electronic data, but no, the CAA is firmly stuck in WW2 :)

With Jepp, the paper chart situation is the same but at least they do offer an electronic alternative which is updated on the 28-day cycle. It's not dirt cheap - the Raster Charts CD for the whole of Europe is about £200 though that's less than the paper charts would cost - but you get something potentially a lot more current.

Jepp have fallen down on UK chart accuracy, probably because so few UK pilots use Jepp charts, so errors don't get reported. This is a problem that uniformly affects all flight information - have you tried phoning/faxing some number published in the "official" AIP for, say, Croatia or Greece? Jepp also have a good amount of corporate arrogance on e.g. the way airways are depicted on their GPS data. But they do provide data which should be updated frequently; you just have to pay for the updates (no free lunch anywhere).

Ultimately, IMV, the CAA is the bunch to blame. If they did what the FAA does and made all data available in electronic form (including approach plates that are usable in the cockpit, not the "A4 with small fonts" rubbish that is in the AIP) that would be a big step in safety. No need to publish a list of chart amendments - just upload the corrected chart on the internet.

Mixed Up

22nd Jun 2006, 10:39

And we know 99% of pilots aren't going to wonder about the ais.org.uk site looking for some PDF listing the mistakes and updates...

and

No need to publish a list of chart amendments - just upload the corrected chart on the internet.

Do pilots use the internet to get flight information or not?

Davidt

22nd Jun 2006, 16:14

Alan M

Am I right in thinking that there has been a change of policy recently? that every infringement no matter how minor or lacking in consequence is to be formally reported.

I seem to be hearing on a reasonably frequent basis in recent months controllers telling pilots "I'm going to file a report on you".

I think one regretable consequence of that is that some folks will not ask for Class d transits, routing around without calling the controlling authority possibly turning transponders off. Surely that cannot be good for flight safety?

gasax

22nd Jun 2006, 16:37

Well Chevvron I won't say anything apart from - if you're going to trumpet the greatness of all things CAA you should read GASIL, it is after all available from the CAA website - although finding it can be a pest.

Mixed up - Do pilots use the internet? Well a huge number do not. Look at recent threads here and on the Flyer site regarding the Notam rubbish. Try and find anything specific on the CAA or NATS sites and your best bet is to try and Google it.

Out of a small circle of friends who fly I'm probably the only one who routinely checks the Notams, the other guys have largely given up - unless they are flying 'down South' and then they try. Why? Because compared with almost any other topic getting the information requires either persistence, expertise, memorising the user manual or printing treefuls of paper.

Today that is an unacceptable approach - if your bank, or any other body did that you would vote with your feet, wit these bodies however we are talking about people who are utterly resistant to the ideas of CRM or even accoutability. The CAA are very good at the 'stick approach'. Run out of fuel and we'll prosecute, (so we all plan to actually run out of fuel when we go flying?). Fly low and we'll prosecute, Bust a TRA and we'll....

One of the threads I've been reading says something like" we'll remove all the spedd limit signs and put the data in an internet site which drivers will have to search before going anywhere". Very largely this is what is happening largely because of the resistance to change and lack of understanding of people in these bodies.

In the 'good old days' Notams consisted of important information and the whole of the UK could be printed on a few pages. Now everyone and his dog is raising Notams, most of which are pretty useless - example operation Neptune Warrior - about 7 pages of we are operating everywhere not obeying the rules of the air - look out. And what use is any of this? The outline area (thankyou Notamplot) covers the entire northern half of the British Isles!!!!!

So characters on these fora do use the internet, however many do not and have been alienated by the pathetically poor sites that the official bodies have created.

Will it ever improve? I certainly hope so because at the moment the situation is building towards bad things happening.

jayemm

22nd Jun 2006, 19:41

One reason for an increase in infringements and level busts may well be that "reports" weren't being "filed" (Davidt). I suspect that most pilots who do this are blissfully unaware. I was on one occasion, and I got a report filed on me. It was a sensible process in my view.
They asked me to explain myself (I had passed through the base of an airway by 500'). At first I was indignant that I couldn't have, but in checking my plan and route realised that I had missed the base altitude change (min 5500), the airway line runs along a main coastal road and I simply missed it during planning. I sent in my report confessing to my error, and I got a "Don't do that again, Happy and Safe Flying" response.
Now I'm much more careful about planning routes and altitude.
I support the trend that Davidt mentions of increasing report filing. As long as it's kept sensible and cautionary (except in extreme cases like flying into a Red Arrows display or worse) then we should be told when we infringe or bust.

Assuming of course we can be identified.

zkdli

22nd Jun 2006, 20:03

Dear All,
Yes there has been an increase in the reporting of infringements. This is because controllers are being encouraged to report them so that everyone knows the real extent of this problem. BUT there does seem to be more happening anyway. Since the 1st of April the airfields in the London TMA have reported 77 infringements of zones, half of which resulted in a loss of separation with other aircraft. Also there was recently an infringement of the Southampton zone by two powered paragliders that got very close to a british regional jet. Turning off your transponder does not hide you from the investigations departments. All that does is give no protection to any TCAS equiped aircraft. If you want to see what a big jet looks like from 100ft away just get lost, enter a zone and switch off your transponder!
If you fly in the south of england the places that get the most infringements are Stansted and Luton. Sure the airspace around Luton has changed and as pilots you should be aware of that! But when was there a change to Stansted's airspace?:)

Fuji Abound

22nd Jun 2006, 21:15

The "On track" project was intended to identify what changes to CAS might reduce the number of infringemnts.

The results, conclusions and importantly recommendations are here:

www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_5.PDF

Go on - have a read

It is worth while.

Whilst doing so consider how the recommendations have been implemented.

IO540

23rd Jun 2006, 06:37

I am on GPRS now (far away) but I did read the Ontrack report last year and one key point it mentioned (well buried) was that just 18% of infringers were using a moving map GPS. Since the % of pilots that routinely "go places" and use a GPS must be approaching 100%, that should be telling somebody something.

In any event, I didn't find that report useful. It doesn't identify anything that could be actually done - short of a drastic change in PPL training (and aircraft equipment improvement :) ) which will always be fiercely resisted by the flight training business.

Droopystop

23rd Jun 2006, 08:35

IO540

Have another look at the report. It seems less than 50% of the infringement cases had a GPS. Now you may argue that all the other aircraft that never infringe CAS are fitted with GPS, but I suggest that this figure is likely to be fairly representative of the GA fleet as a whole (since the report indicates that half of the infringements occur in club aircraft). Indeed 40% occur in owned or syndicate aircraft. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the GA fleet is owned/syndicated and also if the average kit fit is better than the average club can. If as I would imagine the owned aircraft is more likely to be fitted with a GPS, why are they the subject of so many busts?

Moreover, the report suggests that high work loads are a significant common factor in infringment cases. If GPS was reducing work load, then the number of infringements would be going down, not up.

I agree that of course proper GPS usage (in terms of proper installation, maintainance of database and training) would go a long way to improving the situation. Sadly this day is a long way off. But I maintain that traditional navigational techniques are sufficient to keep one away from CAS, it is just a shame that people are not being taught it properly (or are not wanting to be taught it).

IO540

23rd Jun 2006, 19:15

Droopy

My clear recollection (again, sorry for writing in a rush) is that yes, quite a few had a "GPS" but only 18% had a "moving map" which I take as meaning a "moving map GPS". (There is no other "moving map" product on the market in Europe).

This could mean that a lot of people are flying around with non-moving map GPS units. Such units are a total waste of time. You get just about zero situational awareness. They are good for one thing, IMHO: when you are floating in your life raft, you can pick your handheld radio and call up some airliner on 121.50, give him the lat/long and ask him to call somebody up :)

If a lot of people really do fly with £100 GPSs from a camping shop, it's no suprise GPS has such a bad name.

The whole report was unprofessional, with categories such as "get-home-itis" or similar.

Rod1

23rd Jun 2006, 20:53

IO540

It is my experience that there is no one correct way to fly a light aircraft. I, like a number of other pilots have a GPS with a moving map. I have experimented with it but I almost never use it, preferring instead to get a string of numbers, which allows me to manage my flight and refer everything back to my paper map. This has the advantage of integrating my DR navigation with the GPS and the VOR, it also allows me to carry on with little problem if the MOD decide to jam my GPS.

I am perfectly prepared to believe you do not infringe CAS and I know I don’t, so our systems both work. It is the low currency PPL who gets into trouble, probably flying a club aircraft with all the toys but insufficient brain capacity to hold everything together through the rust.

Rod1

Droopystop

24th Jun 2006, 00:39

IO540,

Agreed, the moving map situation could well be a solution, particularly if something like the CAA charts (1:500,000, 1:250,000 and 1:50,000) are used as the data source and regularly updated (even better, use the MOD military charts which are up dated more often). But the £100 camping GPS can also be used PROVIDING the user takes the time to put in a proper route which considers all the NOTAMs and current charts. As can more traditional methods, but again with the appropriate training in their use.

I would challenge your argument that situational awareness is best provided by moving map GPS, although I think it rather depends on the type of flying you are doing. Sure IFR flight SA is adequately fulfilled by moving map. In our situation of low level VFR navigation, a 1:250,000 chart suplimented by the appropriate 1:50,000 OS Map as required gives better SA than the current breed of moving map GPS units (at least those available to the consumer market). Having said that it depends on the map reading skills we have been taught and maintain.

I personally believe that the infringement issue will only be solved when pilots learn how to navigate and plan properly. How people choose to navigate is largely upto themselves and what sort of flying they do. But however they do it, they must understand how to do it properly, be able to gross error check their progress and have a plan B when the seagull chooses to poo on their wings. I don't think it is necessary to mandate the use of moving map GPS, but I do think that a wider use of 1:250,000 charts would help.

IO540

24th Jun 2006, 08:00

But the £100 camping GPS can also be used PROVIDING the user takes the time to put in a proper route which considers all the NOTAMs and current charts

Any nav method is legal, but a moving-map GPS gives you situational awareness and position relative to airspace. A non-moving map GPS doesn't even begin to compare. You might as well use a moving map unit and stick duct tape over the whole display, with a little window cut out showing the lat/long, the track and a few other numbers. OK, people can enter waypoints manually into the camping shop units, but this creates another area ripe for unavoidable human errors. No wonder people slag off GPS so much. As always in UK GA, cost must be the underlying issue here.

In my business I have to develop procedures which ensure that everything that goes out of the door is 100% right. One soon realises that if you pay somebody £200k they will make the same number of human errors they would make if you paid them £10k. It is the system one is operating that (largely) determines how many c0ckups an individual with a particular attitude to getting things right is going to make. That's why the CAA safety evenings are a waste of time IMHO - no use telling people to not fly into hills, etc.

If you fly with 1:50k O/S charts then you must be doing a very different sort of flying to most. I have those on a tablet PC too - great fun to watch but of no use I can see for aviation (except for buzzing some bird's house :) )

What struck me about the ontrack report is that it didn't find out what exactly led up to the error. Obviously nobody is going to plan to infringe airspace, or infringe an airshow, so something must have led to that situation. It's no use accusing the pilot of having been in a hurry to get home, or having been swayed by others to fly, for example; that tells us exactly nothing.

I have already said that notam related stuff is caused mainly by pilots not being taught to get notams in the first place, so I will leave that one now.

I suspect that airspace infringements are caused either by plain nav errors, or by a departure from the planned route (call it "bimbling" if you like). The question then becomes: how to minimise those, in the context of a "45-hour" PPL followed by perhaps just a few hours a year flown.

Cactus99

24th Jun 2006, 09:46

I totally agree with the subject of this thread, I was also amazed/ shocked to read the latest occurence reports.

I counted 53 seperate incidents of airspace infringments (not including level busts) by GA pilots.:eek:

And a further 15 incidents of pilots getting lost/ disorientated.

These figures are appaling and these "pilots" should be ashamed of themselves!!

However, I think it opens a wider debate about the quality of training or rather the required level of knowledge required to pass the PPL ground exams. Yes, everyone makes mistakes no matter how well trained, but i think the figures speak for themselves, this is a very worrying trend indeed!

Almost common to every incident, when ATC told the pilot of the infringement, "The pilot appologised." well Im sorry but that doesnt make it ok.:mad:

Mike Cross

24th Jun 2006, 11:34

Dunno about SA relative to airspace on moving maps.

Most places in southern England you have airspace. Whether you are in it generally depends on how high you are rather than where you are in relation to a line, and the height limits are not readily visible on screen.

If it's a biggish chunk of airspace then one or more of the boundaries are most likely off the screen.

What works is your position transferred on to the map, and you're more likely to be able to do that accurately based on a point feature such as a town or village than you are on a line feature like an airspace boundary. Most of the basic GPS units include a database of towns and villages, even if they don't have any graphical mapping info. There's an unfortunate temptation to shave the corners of airspace with a GPS map whereas a properly selected and entered turning point will keep you clear.

To some extent it's the same as the difference between setting off with a map and eyeballing your way and pre-planning your route and turning points and sticking to it. If you pre-plan your route, program it into the GPS and stick to it, then you're less likely to run into trouble than if you eyeball your way on screen, with the added bonus that your workload is lower and you spend more time looking out instead of studying your position on screen.

chevvron

24th Jun 2006, 13:24

Yesterday a guy in a flex wing called (no transponder) asking to transit overhead my airfield at alt 4000ft. I made no attempt to ascertain where he was, but informed him that the base of controlled airspace overhead was 3500ft, and at 4000 he would be in controlled airspace. He said that conflicted with his information, but he would check. He eventually reported transitting at 3000ft. I was very busy with other traffic, so I didn't have time to identify him on radar.

IO540

24th Jun 2006, 16:43

These figures are appaling and these "pilots" should be ashamed of themselves!!

Why? They don't do it deliberately.

I hear some appalling stuff on the radio almost every time I fly but I don't blame the pilots for this. They are the victims of a training apparatus which could have been written in WW2, and most of them fly so rarely they can probably barely remember which knob in the plane does what. A large majority are non-transponding (yet in most cases the aircraft types involved would not qualify for the standard anti-Mode-S outcry that the plane has no electrical system) which must make ATC tear their hair out at times. As well as making a RIS nearly worthless - if you can get it in the first place, that is.

However, I think it opens a wider debate about the quality of training or rather the required level of knowledge required to pass the PPL ground exams.

Why the ground exams in particular? I've done both the JAA PPL and the standalone (not piggyback) FAA PPL. 6 or 7 exams for the 1st, 1 exam for the 2nd. There is more really relevant practical stuff relevant to flying in the single FAA exam than in the multiple JAA ones put together.

Yet more rigorous ground exams are not the answer.

Cactus99

24th Jun 2006, 18:48

IO540,

I quite agree that they don't do it deliberatley, but if I did it "by accident" then I would be ashamed of myself. I would say it is quite a poor failing in their navigation technique and situational awareness. I just wonder if these pilots actually do something about it after they infringe controlled airspace and cause havoc at LHR, i.e revise a bit of airlaw re airspace classification or speak to an instructor for some advise on how not to do it again etc, etc.

I think the ground exams should be more demanding and by reading the PPL confuser and doing the exam the next day doesn't by any manner or means make someone proficient to fly around UK airspace. I think the above point could be echoed throughout the whole PPL ground exam process.

I have some ex-students who now have a licence who are, quite frankly a liability in the sky. Whats worse is that these people are allowed to carry passengers. Not their fault, but the system which is currently in place does not demand high enough standards for licence issue. I make the point again that these figures speak for themselves.

Droopystop

24th Jun 2006, 20:22

IO540,
I wasn't meaning that a non moving map GPS is used in isolation, rather to supplement the paper chart. But I agree, using such a system does open up the opportunity for mistakes.
As for 1:50,000 maps, yes the flying I do is little unusual although with a helicopter, the world is your landing site (almost). There are even one or two 1:25,000 maps kicking around in the back.
Cactus99:
I do hope you don't mean it when you say :
I have some ex-students who now have a licence who are, quite frankly a liability in the sky. Whats worse is that these people are allowed to carry passengers. Not their fault, but the system which is currently in place does not demand high enough standards for licence issue. I make the point again that these figures speak for themselves.
Are you saying that you taught these liabilities?
Yes, the PPL Confuser makes a mockery of the PPL ground exams. No, increasing the Ground School will not prevent busts. Yes it is important that students learn how to read maps and how the information displayed affects the flight planning process. But the only way to learn how to navigate is by going out there and flying it. Instructors should be spending more time teaching students how to read the map and the land.

IO540

24th Jun 2006, 20:26

Cactus99

I have some ex-students who now have a licence who are, quite frankly a liability in the sky

I don't want this to sound like a cheap comment but (it appears you are a PPL instructor) have you never thought about teaching them differently?

I think the "PPL confuser" stuff is way overdone. Yes, students do use it, but the CAA/JAA exam syllabus is asking for this kind of thing, by being loaded with absolute crap. The same thing happens at every aviation exam level. Even at JAA ATPL level there are various sources of questions, and these are used by JAA ATPL students probably more widely than the PPL Confuser is used by PPL students - unsuprising given the vast amount of crap one was to swat up for that license. The FAA question bank is publicly available and has been for some years.

Every PPL knows about controlled airspace. It's no rocket science. You don't need exams for that. It's one of the most basic things in flying. It's not like the daft VFR rule details, about 500/1000ft spacing from cloud, 140kt max speed below some level, etc, which nobody I know can remember and which are practically irrelevant.

Droopy

I wasn't meaning that a non moving map GPS is used in isolation, rather to supplement the paper chart. But I agree, using such a system does open up the opportunity for mistakes

This is my biggest gripe in these GPS debates - the fact that so many people automatically assume the pilot is going to get airborne with his face stuck to the moving map GPS and without a chart of some sort being carried. IMV, only a d1ckhead is going to do that - simply because a GPS, like any other device, could pack up. Does the ontrack survey find a significant proportion of pilots actually having done this, and who didn't plan the route beforehand with a chart, and whose GPS packed up? I bet you that nearly all infringements are done by pilots who have everything functioning perfectly.

My opposition to non moving map GPS devices is that even if used in conjunction with a chart, they are still highly confusing. Lat/long values are completely useless (unless sitting in a life raft, etc), the mag track is pointless (you have the compass for that), and position relative to some user-defined waypoint is an accident looking for a place to happen (except perhaps for locating an airfield).

Camping shop GPSs are good for .... camping or hiking :) If you get lost, you plot the position on the O/S map and carry on. Can't do that in a plane. The pilots who buy this cheap crap do so because they can't afford the proper stuff, which is a few hundred quid more.

Cactus99

24th Jun 2006, 22:06

Droopystop, yes Im afraid its true, they meet the required standard on the test day, but you know full well that when the going gets tough theres not a hope in hell that they will cope with the situation. Yes they need more practical experience in the air but the PPL sylabus limits us on how much we have to teach them as part of the course.

IO540, yes Iam a part time PPL instructor, and yes I try various methods of teaching people, but at the end of the day, they only have to reach the required standard on the test day. My point being that the required standard is not high enough.

I have been guilty of teaching much more than is required of me but I make no appology for that.

My experience is that some PPLs I have met havent got the faintest clue about what class A or class D airspace means or what it looks like on a half mil chart, and this IMHO is what is causing these airspace infringements.

Fuji Abound

25th Jun 2006, 10:07

Cactus99 - what a frank reply. It is good to see.

I suspect there are many who hold your view.

It is a shame the training industry is not not prepared to put more effort into a fundamental reform of the syllabus.

In my opinion GA is in a bad way these days. We need to do something about it!

IO540

25th Jun 2006, 10:23

Cactus

My experience is that some PPLs I have met havent got the faintest clue about what class A or class D airspace means or what it looks like on a half mil chart

That is hard to believe. The airspace is labelled, with clear numbers. Obviously somebody like that will be infringing all the time, but is there any data to support that a significant % of infringers can't actually read the chart? I know a large % of the general public has insufficient literacy for such a task but it should be difficult or impossible for someone that bad to get through the PPL exams (today).

Why don't you take such people to one side and have a "word" with them? Or perhaps have a word with their instructor.

Or report their school to the CAA. I doubt the CAA gives a damn but if enough people reported such schools then something might be done.

This would not happen under FAA - the punter would never get through his oral, never mind the checkride and the preflight planning for the checkride.

Droopystop

25th Jun 2006, 10:41

IO540,

I wasn't suggesting that people go flying glued to the moving map, although I suspect it happens. I was meerly trying to point out that a properly planned flight, with rigorous inputing of waypoints into "a camping" GPS (and cross checking) is an entirely adequate means of staying away from CAS and having adequate SA (not withstanding the fact that the user must understand the system limitations).

The £100 unit I have gives me the required track and distance to my next waypoint. If those waypoints are well chosen and one sticks to the plan, then that is all that is needed.

Cactus,

Indeed a sad state of affairs. The flying school I used to work for had a system where a SFH pilot had to do 6 monthly check rides and that seemed to help and of course gave them insight to how good they were and the opportunity to relearn and practice things they wouldn't normally do.

I would be interested to know how fixed wing nav techniques differ to those of the rotary world and if rotary pilots navigate more successfully than FW. I am not trying to be arrogant here. Helicopter pilots often navigate to places where that are no distinguishing features (ie runways) so their navigation technique relies heavily on interpreting charts (during planning) and the ability to relate ground to map (when flying). Indeed it would be interesting to see if my supposition is bourne out by the infringement statistics.

Mike Cross

25th Jun 2006, 16:37

IO540 said (among other things)the mag track is pointless
What's that when it's at home?

Both of the non moving map GPS I have used in the past (Garmin 12XL and Magellan 315) had the capability of navigating using aviation waypoints, showing your position relative to trackline, off-track error, ETA at next waypoint, distance to run, groundpeed etc.
Indeed an option on the 315 was a Jeppeson aviation databse you could upload into it and it ws sold, with this database bundled as the 320, for aviation use.
position relative to some user-defined waypoint is an accident looking for a place to happen like VOR/DME you mean?

My GPSMAP 196 is less demanding to use, maybe that's a temptation to push the putton and go rather than properly plan what you want to do, which is necessary with the more basic GPS. (Just playing devil's advocate here;))

Mike

IO540

25th Jun 2006, 17:17

I just don't buy the argument (one of the most common in aviation) that if you deprive a pilot of equipment which would assist him in operating an aircraft, thus forcing him to revert to "more traditional means", he will exercise "better airmanship" and be a safer pilot.

Gosh, it's been a long time since I have used so many phrases out of the CAA safety sense leaflets :O I should get a medal.

I think there is one reason (and very few others) why we have such a backward training syllabus: the flight training industry doesn't want to spend any money on equipment, and doesn't want anything that will make the PPL look any more expensive on their price list.

There isn't anybody around who is the least bothered whether a new PPL holder is capable of doing anything whatsoever.

I suppose NATS definitely are bothered about infringements but they are a long way down the chain.

like VOR/DME you mean?

I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)

Mike Cross

25th Jun 2006, 20:02

Not disagreeing with you, however.......

I would rather the PPL came out with a good knowledge of the fundamentals of flying in daytime VFR, coupled with a healthy understanding of his own limitations. Teaching GPS to people who can't navigate properly using DR and eyeball is not the answer.

The syllabus and the number of exams has grown since I did mine. Has it made for safer pilots? I don't think so.

People infringe for two reasons:-
1.They don't know that they shouldn't be where they are.
or
2. They don't know that they are where they are.

Arguments about GPS or for that matter any radio based navaid are irrelevent to the syllabus for basic daytime VFR IMHO.

There is a very good argument for post-PPL training. Irv Lee has a very good approach to it and the biennial flight with an instructor is also an ideal opportunity (once you evade the people who think it should include the LPC requirements).

The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.

VNAVSPD

25th Jun 2006, 20:51

like VOR/DME you mean?

I think, Mike, that the pilots we are talking about here don't know what to do with a VOR, and DME isn't covered in the PPL (DME and ADF wasn't in it when I did mine in 2000)

I have to agree, and yet I find it one of the most useful aids for fixing my position.

Last week I flew from Cambridge to Lydd via the corridor between Luton and Stansted. I wouldn't dream of navigating through there by DR alone. There are so many variables and between Royston and Hertford, very few features. I tracked the 012R from BPK and felt comfortable knowing that I was a safe distance from both CTA/CTR boundaries.

Yes, this was only a back up to visual navigation, but a very useful one!
And NO, it does not mean that you have to stare at the CDI! Do a full scan for traffic, glance at the CDI and then eyes back outside, simple!

Fuji Abound

25th Jun 2006, 21:23

"Equipment that distracts him from looking where he's going?"

I dont know how much in "fun" your comments were :) but I just dont buy that part of your comment - and it is a comment often made.

In my view there is no means of navigation that keeps your head out of the cockpit more than a moving map, if it is used correctly.

Visual navigation means you spend sometime looking at the ground, map and other instruments and inevitably detracts from a good scan.

The same is far less true of "IFR" navigation which in terms of eyes outside the cockpit is probably as good as using a GPS in VMC conditions.

With a good moving map only the occasional glance is required followed by a brief review that the picture outside corresponds with the picture on the map.

With respect I often feel that those who make this remark have not been taught or do not regularly use a moving map GPS.

IO540

25th Jun 2006, 21:27

Mike

The way is open for instructors and schools to run post-PPL navigation courses, including the use of GPS. I don't see them advertised, which is a pity as there seem to be many who would benefit.

IMV, the reason these things never take off (and I have been to Irv's courses a few years back) is that the pilot doesn't get any privileges as a result. So why should he bother? I once went on a 1-day GPS course, run by Honeywell, and nobody else turned up. Etc.

Compare this with gliding. I don't glide (well I hope I never have to :) ) but I gather they run a system comprising of a string of grades, so there is a continual incentive for people to keep improving.

There are just two reasonably accessible post-PPL "grades": the night and the IMC rating. The first is crippled by most airports closing early, and the 2nd is crippled (mainly, IMV) by non-availability of half-decent planes for rental.

WR

For IFR flight, by definition you're head inside the cockpit

Do you have a reference for that? :) Actually, the great majority of IFR flight is in VMC. That is the #1 planning objective; the alternatives involve potential continued flight in icing, etc. And anytime you are in VMC you are supposed to keep a lookout - even under IFR/airways.

I don't know why so many people think that anything to do with IFR means looking down and fiddling with knobs :) One actually does very little of that. IFR nav techniques are absolutely brill for VFR flight. I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test, have never been lost, never been uncertain of position, never infringed (as far as I know). GPS is a part of that, only a part. Even dialling in a VOR/DME makes a dramatic difference to navigation confidence.

Rod1

26th Jun 2006, 09:07

IO450

“I stopped dead reckoning the day after my PPL skills test”

This explains a lot! I have been using DR for 15 years, I use GPS & VOR as a backup but I will fly with just DR and I to have not knowingly infringed CAS. DR is a proven and effective navigation tool, but you have to work at it and give it a chance!

Rod1

Julian

26th Jun 2006, 10:33

WR,

This assumes of course that you are not trying to refold your map, plot your new course - after of course working evrything out on your whizz wheel, by then you may get chance to look outside to realise you are in a spiral dive..... :)

Seriously, as I have said before, at stude PPL level I agree that they should all know how to read a map, DR, plot diversions, etc. Once they have their PPL then show them GPS, it doesnt matter if you are fling VFR or IFR - the GPS doesnt know!

Personally I use a panel mount GNS430 onto which I my preloaded flight plan alongside an AvMap EKPIIIC for backup. I cross check my GPS and MAP every few mins just in case it happens to go down - which it never has done yet.

All my preflight planning it done on either the laptop or the EKP and then transferred to the map afterwards. In addition to the FP it gives me runways, freqs, avgas avaliability, etc.

GPS is an incredibly useful tool and I just dont buy the idea that anyone using them is a "danger", "head in cockpit", "continually busting CAS more frequently than us gud 'ole map boys".

If you want to nav by map alone then great, no one is stopping you but it doesnt make the rest of us evil. :)

J.

Julian

26th Jun 2006, 12:36

WR - Its for anyone who views GPS users as pilots who..

If you want to spend your Sunday afternoon chasing after a symbol of an a/c on a computerized display whilst you squark along then fine. I'll take the chance that you won't ram me up my @rse while I keep a good lookout in front of me, and you'll have to take the chance you don't ram me up my @rse while you're RASing along in VMC playing with your wotnots.

Droopystop

27th Jun 2006, 08:02

I just don't buy the argument (one of the most common in aviation) that if you deprive a pilot of equipment which would assist him in operating an aircraft, thus forcing him to revert to "more traditional means", he will exercise "better airmanship" and be a safer pilot.

That is not what I am trying to argue. All I am doing is countering the brigade that views technology as the only way ahead and the whiz wheel and DR as rubbish. There are many different ways of "skinning this cat" and all of them can be used successfully to avoid CAS busts.

Incidently, if technology worked on its own, then there wouldn't have been the 18% of incursion incidents which happened with the benefit of moving map GPS. In other words, technology or otherwise is not the answer, it is the attitude of the pilot.

Julian

27th Jun 2006, 08:27

So were the other 82% map readers? :)

Cactus99

27th Jun 2006, 12:36

[QUOTE=IO540]
My experience is that some PPLs I have met havent got the faintest clue about what class A or class D airspace means or what it looks like on a half mil chart
That is hard to believe. The airspace is labelled, with clear numbers. QUOTE]

Hard to believe for you maybe IO540, but I can asure you that this is the case.

Example:
When asked to plan a NAV trip from A to B, these students will plot a line right through class A airspace or base of an airway and they dont realise what they've done, they dont even think its illegal to do this when asked!!:ugh:

Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain.:eek:

IO540

27th Jun 2006, 12:40

Time to find out who the instructor(s) was.

Nobody is that stupid. Not by the time they get far enough down the sausage machine to get a PPL.

gasax

27th Jun 2006, 19:30

Quote
"Whats even more worrying is that some GA pilots Ive flown with think its quite acceptable to fly into cloud whilst VFR, below MSA and in hilly terrain."

Yep he's right - I do it all the time! (well apart from the into cloud part - I'm not brave enough (or have too much imagination!)). But the point of this facile comment is to say that I do it in areas where the mountains are pretty high and VFR flight would otherwise be pretty difficult.

Picking the right glen to enter is however very important and aids like GPS make these decisions much more reliable!

The reason many people are poor pilots is the whole environment of aviation is slightly alien - there are skills that need to be mastered and mistakes which in the majority of case will go underdetected until it gets nasty. One of the drunken phrases I have for friends who ask is that 'flying is terrific fun but pretty nasty when you get it wrong' - but that only really kicks in when you get it very wrong!

There is a natural tendency for specialist groups to have their own language, behaviours and other shared systems. Flying has this in abundance. How much of it is really needed? I'm not sure, but a large amount of it is steeped in historical aspects and not actually based on any rational assessment.

I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue.

We can have all the learned discussions we like, right the world as much as we like - we would however probably be better employed in some constructive coaching.

How often have we actually intervened and made a positive contribution? I've done it a few times - and felt better about myself and the others as a result.

This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.

The next time you see people asking or struggling with the silly coded information systems we have or real practical go, no go decisions - help them!!!!!

Don't start a discussion thread ' I can't believe what plonkers hold a PPL'. Help them, answer their questions and leave them better people..

The devices we use have a variety of strengths and weaknesses, I doubt there is a person alive who can access all the functions and capabilities of a GN430. Equally I'm sure there are subutlities of the 1:500000 that I am unaware of. All of them work and all of them don't work. Depends on who, where and when.

I've been flying for 16 years and I've not stopped learning, sometimes that really scares me - did I really know so little when I first ......

Obviously I did!

So don't start forum threads, inform, help, coach. Then we can all be as clever as youo evidently are!

Too much to ask?

IO540

27th Jun 2006, 20:27

gasax

I agree with you, and I think a number of people have already made the point, forcefully enough, that training is largely to blame.

One could do what you call coaching but the reality is that not a lot of people turn up. Irv Lee has been running a sort of post-PPL course for some years; it's good basic common sense VFR-PPL-level stuff but my recollection is that few of the people that turned up really benefitted. Those who would benefit won't come. And the pilot gets zero privileges in return for his £100 or whatever.

Also a lot of pilots, probably the majority, operate outside the environment in which any coaching might be promoted. Who is going to be dropping flyers around the countless grass strips that so many people are based at?

Also there is so much patronising bull***t written by various "authoritative" sources that anyone attempting education has to steer a very fine line.

The only thing that would make any difference, IMHO, is a complete overhaul of the PPL training syllabus. Take out the WW2 cr*p, take out the daft irrelevant ground school questions, add in the stuff pilots need to know to fly around. Have an oral exam before the checkride, to pickup those who haven't got a clue and any blatent cheats, and make sure everybody knows the basics at least. IOW, more like the FAA PPL! Chuck out all the useless instructors, too. This will never happen.

This forum has a variety of threads about people being plonkers. Not a single one of these supposed 'professional' pilots has mentioned coaching, commenting or helping. In another place this forum was referred to as people in glass house chucking stones - very very true.

If you refer to the flyer.co.uk forum, from what I can see looking in there occassionally, that place is a private drinking saloon inhabited by a few good knowledgeable people and the rest are a bunch of righteous farts who are clearly bored and generate 10,000+ posts in no time at all without ever writing anything that contributes to aviation knowledge. A lot of pilot behaviour gets severely taken apart on there, in long threads full of meaningless 1- and 2-liners, but few posters say how it could be done better (and that very sadly includes some who I know do know the answers).

Cactus99

27th Jun 2006, 22:12

gasax, I hope you werent refering to me in your post. :}

The examples I have posted here are facts based on my experience as an instructor. They are not intended as anything other that an illustration of the knowledge and attitudes of some GA pilots out there. Iam not saying they are all like that, far from it. The truth hurts, and Im sure many other instructors can provide similar examples.

I stated in a previous post that I teach to beyond what is expected of me, I give up many evenings to teach theory and flight safety to PPLs in the hope that some day, that knowledge may save their life or keep them out of trouble, so please do not accuse me of sitting back and not contributing towards flight safety. I never mentioned anything about being clever, I have high standards and I expect my students to adopt the same attitude towards flying!

"I have flown with people whose 'stick and rudder' skills were poor - I don't fly with them now. I've flown with people whose 'system' knowledge' (MET, NOTAMS etc) skill was poor - I don't fly with them now. But criticallty most of them do still fly. Not often, not well (IMHO), but they do fly, and the 'system' allows them to continue".

A very good point you make about the system allowing them to fly, thats partly the issue I believe.

Unfortunatly, many student PPLs enjoy the flying aspect of the course but when it comes to the ground exams, try to avoid them like the plaig. Its "generally" a struggle to get them to study. Yes we all hate exams but I think its about having the right attitude towards flying which will ultimately dictate how safe and competent a pilot will be.

Back on topic, there is a simple question which begs to be asked, "Why do we have so many airspace infringements?"

Does anyone know the answer?