200th infringement [Archive]

Anonystude

5th Sep 2006, 12:17

Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple.

How absolutely, horrifically arrogant. Here are two recent circumstances, both from my own experience:

1) Flying very close (within 1/4nm) to the edge of a certain CTR while remaining OCAS, by reference to the AIP and a 1:50k OS map -- should I not bother calling to say "Oh, hi ... (c/s) remaining clear of CAS to the south" or similar to set the controller's mind at rest...?
(entering CAS not required; didn't ask to enter the zone -- theoretically to make the controller's life easier...)

2) Taking a formation through a narrow corridor of airspace under the London TMA, wanted to get the London QNH amongst other things, operating into a small airfield under said unit's Class D...

Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form... :ugh:

bookworm

5th Sep 2006, 12:33

the number of flights that infringe is small compared with the total number but they account for a large number of the losses of separation and some of the most serious!

Those that aren't able to fly around on their own in good vis need grounding.

There ya go guys, you've brainstormed the solution to the problem. Ground the ones who need help. That will eliminate at least 50% of commerical movements and significantly decrease the losses of separation. :)

Seriously, as someone who flies in both the airways and outside controlled airspace, I think you underestimate just how much higher the workload is in the SE of England for those outside controlled airspace than for some of your regular customers.

Oh, and how can being handed over imply clearance into the zone?

You tell me. Yet Essex always seems somewhat surprised when I ask for confirmation that I'm cleared into the zone on their vector after no mention has previously been made of it.

skydriller

5th Sep 2006, 12:41

Originally Posted by AlanM
Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple

Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form...

I think that is what alot of pilots are now doing, skirting the edge/bottom of zones and not bothering to call up, especially in the SE of the UK.

From my recent visit to the UK over the summer I had cause to ask for Class D trasits on 8 occasions, I got 3 of them, and only on 2 of the refusals did it appear busy on frequency. "remain clear of controlled airspace" - yep I can do that, moving map GPS is very cool!! And funnily enough I saw a couple of other guys doing the same as me (skirting the zone) every time.

Interestingly I have been in France for 5 years now and have never been refused access to Class D yet.....

Regards, SD..

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 14:10

Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form... :ugh:

Given that is what 90% of the traffic around our zone and below our TMA do.

And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple.

When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??

We probably get 80-90% of VFR traffic through the zone.... only blighted when the weather is bad or there are higher priority tasks precluding the transit.

Oh and if you are going to skirt the zone by 1/8th a mile as so many do, the IFR traffic may get TCAS RA on you irrespective of whether your Mode C of 2.4 is verified or not.

PA7

5th Sep 2006, 14:22

Sunday saw a pretty staggering anniversary: the 200th infringement of CAS around the London TMA airfileds since the 1st of April this year.
Thats 200 in FIVE months!

and that's not counting the ones that do not get reported.................:=

frostbite

5th Sep 2006, 14:31

Hope I'm not diverting the thread here.

I often hear Southend referring to unidentified aircraft, sometimes only a couple of miles away. I mean the "slow moving" ones, not the "probably airways traffic", so wonder whether these might usually be microlights?

If so, do microlights not have an obligation to (a) carry a radio and (b) use it under the same rules as other light aircraft?

Kaptain Kremen

5th Sep 2006, 14:39

"And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple."
Nice.
Maybe a better attitude would be to talk to the guys on the edge of the zone, or passing nearby so that if they look like they are about to enter the zone a well timed "Oi!" would prevent the infringement. Surely a 20 second conversation for them to tell you that they are nearby, no service required, is quicker than moving lots of heavy metal about to keep separation when someone infringes? This is how you could reduce some infringements, the one of a pilot in a high workload environment. Agreed, pilots should plan better, but human error happens.

As for those who cannot navigate in good viz should be grounded, well, other factors may be at play in the cockpit you don't know about.

DFC

5th Sep 2006, 14:42

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

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 15:22

Kapt Kremen at al. Sorry, but you have missed the point.

We do not have time to sit there and fine tune your plan to fly within 1/4 mile of the zone boundary. THAT is the point.

We help when we can, but when it comes to the point where IFR jets are going through the localiser, or unable to climb because some plonker who wants to give their life story and are coming nowhere near the zone, then it is UNACCEPTABLE to call.

As I said, on our sectors everyone will try and get traffic through. But the fact that you want to fly close to the edge is your own lookout.

Those who aim to fly along the northern edge of the zone on their moving maps, a gnats whisker away from CAS and forget there is a strong northerly wind get no sympathy from us.

Oh, and we don't do lengthy paperwork anymore, just a quick logon to the computer and events are now filed straight into the system.

I for one do not think that the system is perfect, and am a strong backer of a London LARS setup - but the local approach units are largely too busy to hold your hand.

Sorry.

S-Works

5th Sep 2006, 15:32

Jesus Christ Alan, you bloody arrogant ass. It is little wonder there is so much hostility between controllers and GA.

Your little tirade has just set back the relationship a very long way. I used to think your posts were even and level. The comments below just make you out to be a GA hating git. I suggest if you hate GA that much you should head back to the ATC forums and pour out your anti GA bile over there.

Given that is what 90% of the traffic around our zone and below our TMA do.
And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple.
When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??
We probably get 80-90% of VFR traffic through the zone.... only blighted when the weather is bad or there are higher priority tasks precluding the transit.
Oh and if you are going to skirt the zone by 1/8th a mile as so many do, the IFR traffic may get TCAS RA on you irrespective of whether your Mode C of 2.4 is verified or not.

Kirstey

5th Sep 2006, 15:43

My favourite was the ex SATCO at Yeovil.. hated GA doing NDB approaches and referred to us as "Little P1ssers".

I was always of the opinion that gatwick/thames approach controller would want to know about me skirting around their zone, under their CTA. Not one has ever told me they'd appreaciate a call.. and that if you have no mode C or transponder you are deemed seperated from traffic inside controlled airspace.

I guess the flip side of that is if a LCY inbound gets a TCAS RA from a PA28 at 1400ft under the CTA.. If controllers don't want to talk then it's tough tits about the RA.

and if you think Alan's stroppy wait til talkdownman gets here!

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 15:44

You and others are IGNORANT to what ATC at approach units in the south east actually does.

They are not there to provide people with a RIS when it is 40kms and Sky Clear (people ask daily). That is the job of a LARS unit. The fact that there is NOT eough LARS cover for busy airspace is not the fault of these approach units. Perhaps you should vent your anger at the poorly trained PPLs who call us daily who lead us to dislike GA more and more. (or the CAA for not funding LARS)

And no I and other ATCers don't neccessarily hate GA. F ar from it in fact. It can be a pleasure to work and help people who have a modicom of common sense.

We hate idiots who cannot avoid some airspace, don't appreciate the strain on the system or expect the earth for nothing.

Frankly I don't care what you think of me.... sorry to have ruined your rose tinted spectacle view of me or UK ATC!:cool:

Kirstey, the point is that I can call the traffic and the IFR traffic STILL takes an RA. So why bother calling me! Especially as 70% of the traffic know not to bother as we are too busy. If everyonecalled we could give accurate Traff Info.

(Not an invitation for everyone to call!!!)

So - why not:

1. Listen out on the frequenecy and gauge how busy the unit is first. If you here "Number four on standby" and you are not inbound to the zone or prepared to hold then just carry on outside CAS.
2. If you are that unsure as to your track keeping when flying 1/4 mile form the zone boundary, and the freq is busy why not just MONITOR the freq! You will get the feel of the traffic sceanrio. Also, I make blind calls on the freq if I see something come into the zone without authorisation.

Stay safe!

IO540

5th Sep 2006, 15:44

the 200th infringement of CAS around the London TMA airfileds since the 1st of April this year.

and the sole navigation method which is taught in the PPL syllabus dates back to which decade of the early 20th century ...... ??

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

No use moaning about CAS busts. They will go on.

As the PPL population gets older and its mean income goes down, they will get more frequent because pilots will be flying fewer and fewer hours - even less than the present very small annual average.

The only way out of this is forward.

SATCO Biggin

5th Sep 2006, 15:50

I fly, I also control, I do not fly near the edges of the sky particularly the bits that have dotted lines alongside them. :eek:

Before I fly I look at a map and I see all the pretty dotted lines drawn on it. I plan to avoid those lines by far more than a whisker.

Before I fly I look at Notams and TRA's, I do not want to be the 10th member of the Red Arrows.

I do not have a GPS, or a transponer, or a VOR or anything other than a radio so I follow my VFR route by looking out of the window and using the map. How many of these 200 infringers were VFR? I will bet a months salary it was nearly all of them.

Student pilots I will give some degree of leeway to, after all they are still learning (although the instructor authorising may get a call)

Most of it is sloppy flying, or a commercial drive to save money by keeping track distances to a minimum:=

Awaiting the incoming tirade of abuse. :ouch:

'Chuffer' Dandridge

5th Sep 2006, 15:50

Fly around non-radio without Txpdr. It means you dont have some nob of an Air Trafficer routing you all over the place for no reason (or maybe to make life easier for the commercial guys). Example. I flew past Boscombe Down a few months ago and requested MATZ crossing East to West. Given a FIS, squak etc. Not a lot happening at BD (I could see it, even though they were on UHF) and was told to route via Alderbury (a very insignificant place for those not local to Salisbury). After going about 20 miles out of my way, and just as I was about to go en-route, squaking 7000 etc etc, said controller then routes me direct to my destination. :=

Essex radar have never given me a crossing of the Stansted Zone in the last 10 years, apart from once, and then only because Stansted was my final destination! So I now just skirt the zone very carefully, and remain outside CAS, knowing that if I ask, the chances are i will not get a crossing clearance. Southampton, on the other hand, have always given me a crossing clearance.

As soon as ATCers realise that not all GA pilots are potential infringers, then maybe they might be tempted to give a better service......But then navigation standards have to get better, without blind reliance on the black box of the devil..

S-Works

5th Sep 2006, 15:53

As a regular user of "your" services under IFR, I have never had rose tinted spectacles.

You do however do a great disservice to the ATC proffession.......

Making it clear to PPL's that you won't provide a service rather than giving advice on what they should consider doing is just plain arrogant.

As IO540 rightly points out while people defend outdated navigation methods in a piss poor PPL sylabus and controllers show your lack of tolerance we will continue to have busts.

At least most of the time I go over you not under.

You and others are IGNORANT to what ATC at approach units in the south east actually does.
They are not there to provide people with a RIS when it is 40kms and Sky Clear (people ask daily). That is the job of a LARS unit. The fact that there is NOT eough LARS cover for busy airspace is not the fault of these approach units. Perhaps you should vent your anger at the poorly trained PPLs who call us daily who lead us to dislike GA more and more. (or the CAA for not funding LARS)
And no I and other ATCers don't neccessarily hate GA. F ar from it in fact. It can be a pleasure to work and help people who have a modicom of common sense.
We hate idiots who cannot avoid some airspace, don't appreciate the strain on the system or expect the earth for nothing.
Frankly I don't care what you think of me.... sorry to have ruined your rose tinted spectacle view of me or UK ATC!:cool:
Kirstey, the point is that I can call the traffic and the IFR traffic STILL takes an RA. So why bother calling me! Especially as 70% of the traffic know not to bother as we are too busy. If everyonecalled we could give accurate Traff Info.
(Not an invitation for everyone to call!!!)
So - why not:
1. Listen out on the frequenecy and gauge how busy the unit is first. If you here "Number four on standby" and you are not inbound to the zone or prepared to hold then just carry on outside CAS.
2. If you are that unsure as to your track keeping when flying 1/4 mile form the zone boundary, and the freq is busy why not just MONITOR the freq! You will get the feel of the traffic sceanrio. Also, I make blind calls on the freq if I see something come into the zone without authorisation.
Stay safe!

IO540

5th Sep 2006, 16:02

Most busts probably are indeed in VMC but there is a slight problem to which there is no apparent solution:

The CAS boundaries are not drawn on the ground below. One has to work out where one is, using a process called navigation. That is where people go wrong.

No use talking about poor airmanship.

It's a bit like my business; electronic manufacturing. You make 10,000 circuit boards. 1% are duff due to defects which are visually detectable (with a microscope). It doesn't matter whether you pay an inspector 10k, 30k, 100k, 200k (pounds p.a.) - he/she will never spot more than a proportion of them. A Chinese one will spot more of them than a Brit one (despite getting 1/10 of the dosh) but the only way to address the issue is to modify the process so that the issue is less likely to arise in the first place.

Human errors cannot be prevented. All one can do is modify the process so they are less likely. All the talk about "airmanship" is completely useless bull.

dublinpilot

5th Sep 2006, 16:12

When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??

Looking at this slightly differently, is it acceptable if transits are regularly refused because of controller workloads rather than because the airspace is full?

Presumably when an airport requests controlled airspace they must be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient controllers to work all aircraft arriving and departing, and all aircraft wishing to transit, or alternatively to fill the airspace to safe capacity, which ever is the greater. This is an assumption on my part, and I'm open to correction, but I'd be surprised if it's wrong.

Why then doesn't that airport have to ensure that there is sufficient controllers to deal with all aircraft wanting to use the airspace in the following years? If the airspace is there, then in my humble opinion, it should be staffed sufficiently.

There will always be unusual occasions when everyone calls at once, and it's simply not possible for the controller to deal with everyone. But when this becomes a regular occurrence then it needs to be fixed. Fixed by getting additional controllers, and additional frequencies if necessary, and not fixed by saying "Remain outside of controlled airspace" to traffic wishing to transit.

Airspace being full to safe capacity is a different matter of course.

dp

SATCO Biggin

5th Sep 2006, 16:30

The CAS boundaries are not drawn on the ground below.

Very true and isn't it sad that this would be the only way to stop many VFR infringements from happening. :eek:

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 16:39

You do however do a great disservice to the ATC proffession.......

You are right - I filed only 3 of the 12 or so CAS busts I saw last month.

Perhaps the CAA will see how bad things are if we file on EVERYTHING.

The last one I filed on went through three ATZs, a CTR and into the LTMA. My fault because I was not talking to EVERY PPL in the sky no doubt.

Bose-x - 75% of the people who I speak to are Average to Excellent on the RT and they get through everytime. Thanks for the advice of how we should do our JOB.... when you are playing at yr hobby.

mm_flynn

5th Sep 2006, 17:25

Is there any source online (or offline) where the 'gory details' of infringements are recorded (Airprox style) and hopefully some analysis of impact and root cause?

There is a general tone in the discussion that infringements are VFR hobbyists. Of the ones I am aware of they range from a Citation on his departure climb not levelling off before entering controlled airspace, a TBM700 airtaxi operator cutting up the London Zone, a French PPLsailing through the TMA at about FL70, a poster here cutting an edge while IFR, another poster entering CAS before being cleared in on a handover plus the lost and the careless.

This random sample seems to indicate the problem is more complicated than Muppet VFR PPLs with duff Mark I eyeballs.

Single Spey

5th Sep 2006, 17:26

Alan M

Your JOB is service provision, which you chose to do; so what if someones hobby is flying? A very large number of passengers today are only flying for leisure purposes.

Somehow I think that if there were a CRM type of requirement for controllers to demonstrate how much they enjoyed providing a service and went the extra mile to provide constructive assistance and advice you wouldn't score too highly. It is NOT your airspace - it is airspace that you have custodianship of on behalf of ALL airspace users and you should apply your skills equitably for the benefit of ALL airspace users.

I fully understand the stress you perceive that you are under - but if you do not have the staffing to provide the required service then maybe you should direct your feelings towards your employer. I wonder how much it might affect your conscience if a refusal of service to a pilot with poor RT (as you perceive it) results in an accident or incident to that pilot. I seem to recall that the best guidance was given along the lines of 'nothing in these rules or regulations shall prevent a controller undertaking such actions as may be necessary to ensure safety'.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

5th Sep 2006, 17:30

Alan

Quite a few of the people who fly for fun also fly professionally. Some people who fly for fun fly to professional standards. Some professionals perform at their jobs in an amateur way.

Not sure in which capacity you put yourself - but I will sometimes speak with ATC even when I don't want to enter a zone because you often find the ILS approach is outside the zone - e.g. Southend.

Given the choice, what would you rather have:
- a safer life where sensible communication is encouraged (I take on board you comments about useless communication with life histories etc blocking more important transmissions...), or
- a life made easier for ATCOs so they can eat dougnuts, drink tea, and read Hello magazine without disturbance?

sorry other ATCOs.

zkdli

5th Sep 2006, 17:36

OK chaps this is very interesting - So far no one has answered the questions posed BUT one reply said that PPLs dont get enough flying to stay current in his opinion and that it will get worse, another said that the syllabus isn't good enough to teach navigation properly but it is not their fault. Another said that its really demanding flying in the SE of England and yet another said that flying within 1/4mile of a CAS boundary is fine.
One reply suggested that if pilots monitored APP frequencies then a blind call might stop an infringememts.
Recently an approach controller did just that - the infringing pilot switched off his altitude encoding TXPDR and continued through the zone. Not only did he cause a lot of avoiding action, he also took away the other pilots last line of defence for stopping collisions - TCAS.
It is actions like that that turn controllers in to cycnical people:D
But seriously for the education of people who read this forum - just what is the real number of infringements, have you infringed, were you traced and what happened - or is it too traumatic?

S-Works

5th Sep 2006, 17:42

You arrogant ****.

I have a CPL/IR and 2000hrs which I believe is the same as the sky gods that you perceive deserve greater attention than the mere PPL's.

As pointed out here, you are in a service industry, serve or find another job better suited to your temperment.

You are right - I filed only 3 of the 12 or so CAS busts I saw last month.
Perhaps the CAA will see how bad things are if we file on EVERYTHING.
The last one I filed on went through three ATZs, a CTR and into the LTMA. My fault because I was not talking to EVERY PPL in the sky no doubt.
Bose-x - 75% of the people who I speak to are Average to Excellent on the RT and they get through everytime. Thanks for the advice of how we should do our JOB.... when you are playing at yr hobby.

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 17:45

watch your tongue, bosey boy

Oh, and to provide you with a service needs some form of payment.

You have all the arrogance of a typical know it all. Thank god I never to have to speak to you

AND FOR THE LAST TIME IS IT NOT I THAT PRIORITISE THE SKY GODS, BUT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITIES WHO CONSTANTLY CONTACT US TO ASCERTAIN THE DELAYS FOR IFR AIRCRAFT.

Don't shoot the messenger

S-Works

5th Sep 2006, 17:49

watch your tongue, bosey boy
Oh, and to provide you with a service needs some form of payment.
You have all the arrogance of a typical know it all. Thank god I never to have to speak to you

I guess the feeling is mutual. But then I suppose "stay outside of controlled airspace" is easy for you to reel off while you do a half arsed job of providing a service to all air users. Perhaps you should read your own charter.

What you gonna do kick me around the play ground?

Service does not require payment. Or are you looking for tips?

zkdli

5th Sep 2006, 17:56

BOSE-X and ALAN M
Take a breath and relax.
BOSE-X you have a lot of experience yet you seem to be saying that infringements are caused by the attitude of controllers in not wanting to give a service to GA. Take a look at the other replies on this thread. It is not just inexperienced ppls who infringe and there have been some reasoned replies as to why certain pilots do and others don't.
How about something constructive from both of you rather than playground jet blast rants:O

Pitts2112

5th Sep 2006, 17:57

potkettleblack - the number of flights that infringe is small compared with the total number but they account for a large number of the losses of separation and some of the most serious! :sad:

I'd be interested in seeing some hard numbers on this. According to the CAA's own statistics, only 34 infringements in an 18 month period (Jan 04 to Jun 05) resulted in a deviation to commercial transport operations. Granted that wouldn't take into account a Cessna causing a separation problem for a Cherokee on final to Redhill, for example, but before we go saying things like "a large number" and "some of the most serious", I'd be interested in seeing some data to back that up.

Let's not perpetuate the myths and let's start talking in facts or we're going to help put ourselves out of the sky.

Pitts2112

Talkdownman

5th Sep 2006, 18:08

if you think Alan's stroppy wait til talkdownman gets here!Now, now, Kirstey:= Unnecessary! PM an apology if you wish............

mm_flynn

5th Sep 2006, 18:08

Oh, and to provide you with a service needs some form of payment.

There is a remarkable consistency between controllers who work controlled airspace and have a view of 'you don't pay you don't get' and controllers who have to provide a service OCAS (i.e Bristol last year) who seems to seek much more communication with people in the open FIR.

I suspect this reflects a fundamental management attitude of the ATC business that airlines are their owners and pay their bills therefore airlines get the service and we (ATC management) will cut staff to all other areas to maximise profits - (which are doing very nicely in pre-IPO NATS). This then seems to be communicated both formally and informally to the ATCOs - who in my experience generally trying to do a good job for everyone within the rules and resources they have been given.

I also suspect this management attitude is very much in the background when application for additional CAS is being made - 'the Class D zone won't really effect VFR traffic as they will just call up and get a zone transfer and by able to continue to fly just as they do now in our area - trust me'. I also suspect this attitude wasn't part of the deal Ministers were told they had done on privatising ATC - probably the only case of privatising a monopoly provider where the monopoly is defined in statute.

rustle

5th Sep 2006, 18:14

I'd be interested in seeing some hard numbers on this. According to the CAA's own statistics, only 34 infringements in an 18 month period (Jan 04 to Jun 05) resulted in a deviation to commercial transport operations. Granted that wouldn't take into account a Cessna causing a separation problem for a Cherokee on final to Redhill, for example, but before we go saying things like "a large number" and "some of the most serious", I'd be interested in seeing some data to back that up.

Pitts2112

I did post some stats and other info here, but because some posters are fools I have removed them. Sorry.

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 18:22

Bose, I probably get 90% of the requests to transit when others may only get 70% through, because I have no problem with doing it - subject to workload on the RT.

You keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in how a busy TC Approach unit functions. For example; Tea and coffee have been banned for a long time and "Nuts" is now the magazine of choice.

I have been on CAS infringement working groups at TC, given talks on how to transit the zone to the HCGB/RAF etc so I do try more than others to fix the problem.

Someone who goes straight through the zone without calling anyone is not a scenario developed by ATCOs not wishing to talk to GA who want a FIS outside CAS.

Perhaps the "industry" as a whole should look at how flying is taught. Not just Nav, but pre-flight planning etc.

My God, if you think that I am the worse at this, my watch dubbed me "pilot's pal" for getting so many aircraft through the zone!!

S-Works

5th Sep 2006, 18:22

Actually I was not blaming controllers for the busts, I was blaming the obvious lack of service that some are providing for exacerbating the situation.

I also made no comment about tea, coffee or buns. I have done the tour and know how hard controllers work.

There are number of reasons that keep cropping up for airspace busts. Lack of experiance on the part of the pilot. Poor preflight planning, over reliance on GPS (i.e poor preflight planning). You also have the situation where people plan a crossing of CAS and when they are refused they are in a situation where they have to replan on the fly. Again poor advance prep but this leaves the ill prepared or inexperianced pilot in trouble especially when trying to plot a new route around the SE corner.

Some pilots will never have slick RT as long as their arse points down but they does not mean they should get treated any differently to mr slick.

Mr slick also cocks up, last week when crossing london at FL100 I listed to a controller maul a girl driving a 737 - "XXXX squawk you have with ident" from the girl, sounded very slick, controller proceeds to roast her for giving an ident when unrequested despite asking for ident for every other aircraft for the last 15 minutes on contact.

As I see it we are all users of the sky and I expect to recieve the same class of service from a controller as the 737 behind me. Certainly in the aiways system it has been my experiance that I am treated with courtesy and professionalism.

swervin'mervin

5th Sep 2006, 18:57

Its a shame that the cash is not available for controllers to do PPL training as I believe they used to in the black and white days. It may give some a better idea of what a pilot is sometimes going through. When I did my IR I had a new ATC girl jump in the back and come along for the ride, she was horrified I wouldn't be able to look out of the window for the next two hours. It certainly showed her that there is more to it than moving the maggot around her radar screen.

chevvron

5th Sep 2006, 19:05

At the risk of starting a new thread bose-X, pilots should NEVER ident unless asked to by ATC, not that I'm saying the controller you mention was correct in his actions 'cos I don't know the exact circumstances.
Going back to AlanM's point about a 'super LARS' for the LTMA area, there was originally a plan for Swanwick to have 10 'FIR radar' positions; presumably the cost issue meant this idea had to be binned, but it does seem to me that if some sort of LARS was available everywhere under the LTMA rather than just to the east, southwest and Mig Alley, it could prevent a lot of these infringements.
I've actually already suggested a system which could be brought in using existing resources as far as possible eg piping existing radars into one unit and using spare consoles at that unit; it'll probably come to nothing; nobody ever listens to my suggestions and there's no (to my knowledge) staff suggestion scheme any more which would discuss all suggestions re their merit.

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 19:19

chevvers.... I agree.... NATS and the CAA should provide something. (and TDM and I genuinely listen mate)

Shame the current Approach units have no capacity/staffing to do so.

bookworm

5th Sep 2006, 19:39

(SSE = Safety Significant Event, all SSEs involve separation being lost).

What does "separation being lost" mean for a VFR vs IFR in class D airspace in VMC?

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 19:44

...think you have to be "known traffic" to be VFRvIFR with traffic info mate!

Interesting to see the number of minutes that departures are stopped when unknown aircraft enter the zones. With one departure every 45 secs would be interesting to see the real impact of me stopping LHR deps for 7 minutes earlier in the year as someone went CHT-BUR without calling anyone. 8x deps? Average of 150 pax per aircraft?

Warped Factor

5th Sep 2006, 20:27

What does "separation being lost" mean for a VFR vs IFR in class D airspace in VMC?

The current interpretation agreed with CAA/SRG that we're working to is less than 5nm and/or 5,000ft with the absolute proviso that the returns do not touch.

Traffic information only to IFR on an unknown infringing and conflicting aircraft is not considered acceptable in A or D, if separation is at or below the above then ATC must try to maintain or increase to the above minimum.

WF.

mm_flynn

5th Sep 2006, 21:00

The current interpretation agreed with CAA/SRG that we're working to is less than 5nm and/or 5,000ft with the absolute proviso that the returns do not touch.WF.

Out of curiosity, what is the IFR v VFR min separation in VMC for Class A and D.

Another one for the engineers. The reasonable failure modes for an altitude encoder. I can imagine it would be quite common for the encoder to be out of calibration by a few hundred feet, however, for larger errors is it likely to be 'just a bit more out' or is it fundamentally wrong? What are the odds of the Mode C being out by 1200 feet as compared to being out by 10000 feet?

Although I understand the rules, it does seem really odd that unknown traffic with Mode C of 2.4 under a 2500 ft TMA ledge is treated as outside controlled airspace and one Mode C of 2.6 needs to have traffic at FL80 to be separated - and Mode A returns are assumed safe unless they are in a zone!

rustle

5th Sep 2006, 21:05

Out of curiosity, what is the IFR v VFR min separation in VMC for Class A and D.

That's easy for Class A -- no VFR allowed ;)

BRL

5th Sep 2006, 21:05

DFC

5th Sep 2006, 21:11

The current interpretation agreed with CAA/SRG that we're working to is less than 5nm and/or 5,000ft with the absolute proviso that the returns do not touch.

How did the CAA decide that when a mode C is in error, it will always be in error by 4000ft or less within this airspace but by 2000ft or less in other places?

How often has any pilot or ATC seen a corrupt mode C. Not incorrect altimeter setting but corrupt mode C?

Of the two cases I have seen, both were indicating FL300+ when flying below 3000ft.

One can not claim a loss of separation in class D between VFR and IFR because the standard separation is simply do not collide by looking out your window and spotting the traffic! It may be an airprox but not a loss of ATC separation. Where a VFR flight infringes then the atc unit may not notice and may not pass traffic information. Traffic information is to be passed to IFR flights on relevant VFR flights. Now if the traffic info is not passed by a procedural unit then hey what do you expect. However, if a radar unit fails to pass traffic information on what they see then they have failed to provide the required service and any subsequent airporx is not simply pilot error.

Of course, UK VMC minima contrary to the ICAO standard permits VFR flight at the cloud base in class D. Not much chance for the IFR flight to spot the traffic just as it becomes visual then!

As I said previously, it is the system and the answer is not as simple as the pilots being at fault. Until the complete system is tackled then safety will continue to suffer.

Regards,

DFC

AlanM

5th Sep 2006, 21:29

I don't think that it is just a question of a margin of error in the Mode C that gets us trying to achieve 5000ft on unknowns....... It is also the unpredictability of the level and intentions of the unknown.

zkdli

5th Sep 2006, 21:29

OK Chaps a little lesson on CAA regs!

It does not matter what flight rules the unknown (or infringing aircraft) is flying under. What matters is what are the flight rules of the traffic that the controller is working.
If the aircraft is IFR and in CAS it must be receiving a Control service. If the aircraft is recieving a RADAR control service the controller is required to take 5nm or 5,000ft against any unknown traffic that there is evidence to show is in the Controlled airspace concerned. (MATS PT1)

There is no discretion from the CAA, although they accept that an infringement may occur at the worst possible time and that the required separation may not be achieved.

Therefore if you have an IFR aircraft in CAS class "A" through to "D" the controller must avoid the unknown traffic.

P.S as for the clips of infringers it is highly unlikely that they will be realeased to a public forum where anyone (not just inerested pilots) may be able to access them.

TC_LTN

5th Sep 2006, 22:49

I have read all this with interest. The acrimonious attitude demonstrated by the interchanges between Alan and Bose is thankfully not typical of the relationship between GA pilots and ATCOs IMHO. Pilots and controllers that I have the privilege of speaking with about the issue of infringements are generally very close in their perceptions about the causal factors and possible solutions to the problem. 'Electronic' dialogue, while a very powerful medium, is not always best a resolving what appear to be polar opposed attitudes. I suspect if Bose was to plug in with Alan on Thames Radar for a few hours he would quickly understand why your average ATCO (not suggesting you are average, Alan ;-)) has a healthy degree of cynicism about the abilities of your average PPL (which Bose has assured us he is far above in the food chain ;-))

I would like to contribute to the debate with a couple of issues which are close to my heart;

1. I personally, have absolutely no doubt that the ability to navigate by your average PPL has diminished dramatically over the past 18 years or so I have been providing a radar service. More worryingly, this diminishing ability is being perpetuated by declining standards in our instructors. My assessment of this is based on the fact that while providing a LARS service for approximately 12 years I had cause to file a report on one instructor who managed to conduct an entire general handling exercise inside controlled airspace, without a clearance. Conversely, over the past 2 years I have found it necessary to report infringements involving instructors on approximately seven occasions.

2. The provision of a comprehensive LARS service around the LTMA would have a fundamental and dramatically positive effect on the number of infringements of controlled airspace. This service would not only be capable of 'holding the hand' of a pilot who is struggling with the complexities of navigating around exceptionally busy and demanding airspace dimensions but would also provide the capacity to accommodate transit clearances in circumstances when the the 'zone' controller has airspace capacity but not capacity within his/her workload.

Both of these issues IMHO require the positive and decisive intervention of the CAA. Syllabus and standards need to be immediately reviewed and monitored. Enough data must surely be available from infringement investigations to indicate exactly where the present training regime is lacking. A comprehensive system of retraining and re-examination for EVERY infringing pilot would address immediately those people whose poor standards are readily demonstrable while fundamental revision of the biennial flight review and examiner assessment would address the root cause.

ATC service providers may choose to bite the bullet and simply provide a LARS service around the LTMA if the situation continues to deteriorate AND they believe, as I do, that the provision of the service would be a very positive method of addressing the problem. It is however, incredibly difficult to resource given the on-going shortage of radar controllers and very expensive given the fact that traditionally the remuneration generated for LARS is nowhere near what is required to cover the cost of provision. This, however, should be no excuse for the CAA to not direct the service providers to provide this service given the extent of the 'problem', the complexity of the airspace and the diminishing ability of busy controllers operating within controlled airspace to provide anything other than their basic 'contracted' service to IFR traffic.

Even given the relatively large amount of effort devoted to increasing awareness of the infringements issue amongst ATCOs and pilots, the figures continue to increase disproportinately as does the problem to the extent that I really fear some catastrophic event will be the catalyst to generate the decisive action which the CAA should be instigating NOW.

tangovictor

5th Sep 2006, 23:57

Im new to aviation, and have read this thread with great interest, like most pilots, I/ we are at the mercy of our instructor's when it comes to being taught nav, I would greatly appreciate exactly what is required, when flying close to a restricted area ? maybe AlanM could give a definative answer please ? I don't wish to become an infringer

mm_flynn

6th Sep 2006, 06:56

That's easy for Class A -- no VFR allowed ;)

Thanks Rustle - Brain Fade on my part;) probably should have said SVFR vs IFR in Class A.

The separation rules on unknown traffic do seem quite large - but I am not an airspace designer. Is it correct that an aircraft radar identified and in receipt of only FIS is 'known' and is it therefore correct that if this aircraft infringes the separation requirement is the only the 'Standard' for VFR or SVFR in class A (although logically I am not sure an infringing aircraft could be SVFR)

Talkdownman

6th Sep 2006, 06:56

At risk of being labelled as 'stroppy' by the uninformed I fully endorse TC_LTN's excellent post :D
Oh, and it's 'biennial', by the way..........

bookworm

6th Sep 2006, 07:18

The current interpretation agreed with CAA/SRG that we're working to is less than 5nm and/or 5,000ft with the absolute proviso that the returns do not touch.

So all we really know about the SSEs is that the infringing aircraft came within 5 nm and 5000 ft of an IFR flight?

Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?

rustle

6th Sep 2006, 07:52

Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?

There's a very good (nay, excellent ;)) "talk" that some ATCOs are providing to clubs, schools and private pilot groups which includes discussion of these and some graphics of the events;

If you get the chance to visit LTCC there are some [disidentified] radar replays that NATS can show you in their own premises;

If you subscribe to "Instrument Pilot" there should be some more information in there in the next edition - if the author of said piece pulls his finger out ;)

If you want to hear the "talk" I can put you in touch with a man who can :}

BTW, the ATCOs doing these talks are doing it in their own time and at their own expense :D, so it might take a little while to organise...

TC_LTN

6th Sep 2006, 08:02

Bookworm,

I find it hard to believe that you haven't attended a visit to LTCC or seen an infringements presentation given your enthusiasm for all things aviation?

Rustle has already detailed what constitutes SSEs and I am surprised that given the figures as presented and the description of the 'problem' in the thread that the tone of your response would seem to question the significance and quantity of the 'problem'.

I have seen some very cynical and sceptical pilots, converted by seeing the presentation and/or spending some time on a TC Approach position and talking to our ATCOs.

The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.

flower

6th Sep 2006, 08:03

1. I personally, have absolutely no doubt that the ability to navigate by your average PPL has diminished dramatically over the past 18 years or so I have been providing a radar service. More worryingly, this diminishing ability is being perpetuate by declining standards in our instructors. My assessment of this is based on the fact that while providing a LARS service for approximately 12 years I had cause to file a report on one instructor who managed to conduct an entire general handling exercise inside controlled airspace, without a clearance. Conversely, over the past 2 years I have found it necessary to report infringements involving instructors on approximately seven occasions.
.

Not just happening in your neck of the woods either TC_LTN some of the worst infringements or inability to follow instructions have been whilst the FI has been in control in this neck of the woods.

Whilst I am sure LARS would assist preventing some of the infringements my own personal experience is that many of the infringer's haven't been speaking to us and we provide a LARS service, so what excuse is offered up when a comprehensive radar service is available ?

S-Works

6th Sep 2006, 09:14

Which just goes back to my earlier point about the quality of the average PPL. It was not me that attacked AlanM it was rather a blanket statement that was made about PPL's being crap and being told to steer away from CAS because we are not wanted. The strange thing is on the whole I can agree with his reasons just not the way he presented it!

The standard of PPL training these days is shocking as a whole. Why? because we allow inexeperianced hours builders to become FI's who know nothing about flying and are only interested in a jet job (and will sit there and tell you all day how long how they are going to fly an airbus). These wet behind the ears instructors have no experiance to pass on, in fact most of them have probably only been near controlled airpspace during there own training yet they are quite happy to try and convince the mere mortals that they know everything.

The correct use of GPS and Nav aids is not taught as the instructors generally don't have access to them theirselves (to broke from getting up to their eyeballs in debt from training) and the spamcan fleet is full of old crap that does not work. (Q PeterH here for support.......:) )

TC-LTN, yes I am probably further up the food chain know I took the effort to do a CPL/IR, but that has been through determination to improve my flying and learn about everything in aviation possible with the aim of being a safer pilot not an airline pilot. I did this so I did not become one of the infringers and to ensure that my flying and RT were first class 100% of the time. I get refused very few transits.....

So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?

TC_LTN

6th Sep 2006, 09:44

TC-LTN, yes I am probably further up the food chain know I took the effort to do a CPL/IR, but that has been through determination to improve my flying and learn about everything in aviation possible with the aim of being a safer pilot not an airline pilot. I did this so I did not become one of the infringers and to ensure that my flying and RT were first class 100% of the time. I get refused very few transits.....
So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?
The trouble with being perfect is that lots of other people spend an inordinate amount of time either trying to prove you are not perfect or simply relishing the day when the inevitable 'fall from grace' exposes one's fallibilities. Fortunately, I am incapable of sitting myself on quite such a high pedestal and find some solace in that my regularly exposed failings are generally tolerated by friends, colleagues and casual observers because I am prepared to listen and learn from others. ;)

zkdli

6th Sep 2006, 10:00

TC_LTN
Be careful, BOSE-X was not saying that he was perfect - he was saying that he has worked hard not to be one of the pilots that infringe airspace and that he was treating his hobby with the same professional attitude that most commercial pilots would like to think they do...
What he said was that not everyone does:O

slim_slag

6th Sep 2006, 10:30

So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall)How on earth do you know that? I've busted Class B on two occasions that I know about (filed NASA forms both times), I have no idea how many I don't know about, but I bet it's happened, and probably more than twice.

SATCO Biggin

6th Sep 2006, 10:37

slim_slag

6th Sep 2006, 10:53

Although an improved radar service would be very nice, in the places where they are widely available I don't use them to avoid CAS, I use them as an extra pair of eyes for traffic avoidance and somebody to talk to if I have a problem. I don't think it's the controllers job to vector me around airspace, that's my job. Actually it's the controllers job to let me through controlled airspace.....

Best way to avoid CAS bust IMO is better airspace design and better charts. Certainly the UK is crying out for the former, and my opinion would be that the charts need work, but that has been contentious on here in the past :)

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2006, 11:19

On the whole I find controllers very good. Refusals of transits are rare, and if anything I detect they are more readily forthcoming than they were say two or three years ago.

Inevitably there are those controllers who you feel might do as well to take a social skills course, but that is also true of some pilots.

My personal pet hate are those controllers who respond to a CAS clearance request with “remain clear etc .. .. ..”. Private pilots don’t just fly for pleasure and some have schedules to keep. A decision needs to be made whether to route around or wait for the clearance. A simple “remain clear of CAS, but you can expect a clearance in x minutes” would be so much more helpful.

To answer the original question .. .. .. Of course infringements are a problem, infringements of ANY airspace are a problem. The solution in the long term must be down to training. With correct training, infringements should be extremely rare, and only occur for exceptional reasons. Training needs to impact at two separate points.

Firstly, there is clearly a need to train initial students to a higher standard. I am not entirely convinced any perceived fall in standards is attributable to the number of FIs who are wannabe commercial pilots, because I am not sure the make up of the FI population has changed a great deal over the last five years or so. I suspect there has simply been a general fall in standards and too greater willingness to pass students.

Secondly, there is also clearly a need to tackle the existing population of pilots. The two yearly check provides an opportunity, but in my opinion the opportunity is consistently missed by instructors. When were you last asked to review with the instructor CAS clearances and navigation?

Finally, whilst I broadly agree it is not the role of controllers to “mollycoddle” pilots never the less both should have an interest in reducing CAS infringements. Controllers should therefore provide as much support to GA as possible remembering in particular that GA is often far less well equipped than their commercial brethren. Inevitably work loads are sometimes high. Equally controllers have a role to play in enforcing standards, particularly as regards RT. In my view there is more unacceptable RT that is left uncorrected than there was, by some margin. It was not uncommon to hear controllers insist read backs and clearances were PRECISELY correct, where as there seems to be more occasions now when the read back eventually conveys the correct information but is still less than clear. Personally without the correct read back I would refuse whatever the clearance is that is being requested .. ..

Anonystude

6th Sep 2006, 11:21

If I thought I had a realistic chance of being allowed into the CAS in my part of the world, I wouldn't plan (or feel I had to plan) to skirt the edges and thus put myself in a situation where a small navigation error would result in paperwork...

DFC

6th Sep 2006, 11:35

If some kind soul would buy me a nice new radar, train and employ the staff and maintain the equipment I would be more than happy to provide southeast England with a LARS. :ok:
Strange...I do not hear the sound of wallets being un-zipped. Maybe I am asking too much.

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for radar at Biggin when a service from TC would be a far more cost effective option?

Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service. So perhaps people would be more inclined to promote an investment in improving the current service which with some investment (far less than that required for your empire building idea) could provide a more appropriate service.

--------------

Someone mentioned provision af a LARS service. Waste of time. I have probably over the years operated within the area of responsibility of every LARS unit in the country. IFR and VFR. The service is at best patchy and generally simply not available when it is most needed.

----------

As for navigation. While I do believe that navigation is not being taught to the required standard, there is more to the infringements than that.

How many pilots are aware and make allowances for the accuracy of the navigation they are performing. Every one checks 5nm or more each side of track for obstacles because they know they could stray such a distance from track between fixes however, those same pilots plan to fly 1/4 mile from an airspace boundary ignoring the posibility of making an infringement.

Thus, if one was to plan carefully, one would plan to route 5nm (or more) clear of airspace. Try that in the airspace under the LTMA!. Thus the airspace forces pilots to reduce the safety margins and consequently these reduced margins can result in errors.

-------------

The laughable situation is that a pilot can blast off from Biggin VFR request a service from Thames, be refused and then QSY to London Info, fly at exactly 1500ft on the London QNH along the base of the London City CTA with a mode C reading 1700ft, causing (through no fault of their own) severe delays at the City because of controllers taking 5nm and 5000ft separation...........while not in any way being at fault in any way.

Remember the Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area? Why not have a similar requirement in the airspace below the LTMA and some ATSAs at TC providing a FIS as FISO(A)'s. They could coordinate transit requests, specials joiners etc etc. They could also use radar to confirm accuracy of altitude indications on mode S transponding aircraft while making mode S being mandatory for operation in and below the TMA.

Scottish ACC while not having such a traffic loading has a dedicated FIS providing a service in the airspace below the TMA's area of responsibility. Why not follow the idea where there is actually clearly more of a need?

Regards,

DFC

slim_slag

6th Sep 2006, 11:36

People like to slag off training, some people on here at every opportunity (and you are not one FA), and I reckon it's just a hidden reason for the slagger to tell the world how much better they are than the rest of 'em. Funny that the people who slag instructors off don't have an instructor rating (though we know what other ratings they have, as they tell us - repeatedly).

I've sent students off on cross countries next to very busy airspace and I have no problem with that, and they don't have GPS. Why am I fine with that?

1) Because the 'stay out' airspace is small and so the edges short.
2) The edges are easily known, that's because whenever possible they use visual references on the ground to deliniate the airspace. It was designed with VFR pilots in mind.
3) These visual references are shown on the chart, and lots of other stuff which isn't important is not.
4) They are trained to look out of the window, and not at a GPS in the panel.

These are student pilots for god's sake, no experience whatsover. Don't tell me you need a CPL and IR to avoid busting airspace, that's rubbish. Make the airspace work for everybody and you'll get a reduction in infringements.

SATCO Biggin

6th Sep 2006, 12:49

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for radar at Biggin when a service from TC would be a far more cost effective option?

Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service.

Perhaps my TC colleagues would care to comment?

How many TC sectors participate in the LARS and how many end providing services to aircraft outside CAS only when workload allows.

Warped Factor

6th Sep 2006, 12:56

The last time I took a load of ppruners to West Drayton, we were shown three clips of infringements. They were pretyy eye opening to say the least. The Heathrow one was serious although I started laughing as I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was unbelievable.
WF. I wonder if it is possible to see the clip on here or even better all three. What are the chances mate?

BRL, on here, zero.

We will be speaking with the new webmaster of the Fly on Track site though to discuss what we might be able to make available on there.

So all we really know about the SSEs is that the infringing aircraft came within 5 nm and 5000 ft of an IFR flight?

Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?

SSEs are NATS own internal scoring mechanism. It's likely there will be at least an MOR report behind each incident that NATS then scores for its own purposes using the SSE scale so if you have access to the CAA incident reports you will likely be seeing all the events that NATS are subsequently scoring internaly for their own purposes using the SSE scale.

One can not claim a loss of separation in class D between VFR and IFR because the standard separation is simply do not collide by looking out your window and spotting the traffic! It may be an airprox but not a loss of ATC separation. Where a VFR flight infringes then the atc unit may not notice and may not pass traffic information. Traffic information is to be passed to IFR flights on relevant VFR flights. Now if the traffic info is not passed by a procedural unit then hey what do you expect. However, if a radar unit fails to pass traffic information on what they see then they have failed to provide the required service and any subsequent airporx is not simply pilot error.

If in this paragraph you are talking about inringing VFR traffic then you don't really understand the subject, not for the first time.

WF.

Warped Factor

6th Sep 2006, 13:02

How many TC sectors participate in the LARS and how many end providing services to aircraft outside CAS only when workload allows.

None of them and all of them I would say.

WF.

AlanM

6th Sep 2006, 13:17

SATCO Biggin.... That is the point mate. There is no time on the RT for most Approach Controllers to get the stuff through CAS, let alone the stuff planning on going around.

Just look at the year on year increases in traffic say the last 5 years. How many "New" approach sectors or seats are there for the LTMA airfields????

Bose - it is not me saying that you are not wanted because you are not loved (in a GA Sense!) but you are sadly not wanted because we are busy dealing with the IFRs and zone transits!! I have lost count of the number of times traffic going from Elstree to Southend calls Thames when in the Stapleford overhead! It happens daily. (or is routeing DET-BIG-OCK and they get upset when I tell them to call Biggin for ATZ transit)

Have a look at the coverage of Southend LARS..... doesn't it nearly meet with Farnborough's coverage???

Farnborough have a book listing all the aircraft that they either dig or prevent from entering the Zones of Gatwick, Heathrow and Solent, not to mention the LTMA.

So, to sum: WE DON'T HATE GA.... WE DON'T REFUSE GA WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE... We just don't have the TIME to deal with everyone outside CAS. DON'T BLAME US!

IO540

6th Sep 2006, 13:22

Boys and Gurlz

It doesnt matter how many movies of CAS busts you put up on some website. I've been to two ATC units recently and it's very interesting stuff, especially the radar track videos, but it won't make anybody (including myself) fly any differently.

The only way is forward, and the only way forward is to improve navigation. And the only way to do that, in the context of a "45 hour PPL" (which the flight training industry will fight till death - overtly and covertly - to keep unchanged) is a complete revamp.

Ditch the stupid and ridiculous 19th century slide rule (which Babbage would have immediately understood) and the many hours spent (wasted) learning how to use that piece of crap (without, in nearly all cases, actually ever acquiring an understanding of how it works) and instead spend those hours using electronic aids, and a GPS.

This whole business is so old fashioned it's going to get swallowed up in its own Olde English backside if it carries on for much longer.

Today I flew from Corfu LGKR to Padova LIPU. Guess how many planes I saw or heard en route (distance about 600nm). Answer: 0 and about 3. That is what is in store for UK GA unless something is done.

It's even worse down in Greece.

bookworm

6th Sep 2006, 13:28

Bookworm,
I find it hard to believe that you haven't attended a visit to LTCC or seen an infringements presentation given your enthusiasm for all things aviation?

I have done both, though a long time ago. I would have loved to have attended the most recent one, but another commitment prevented me doing so. Maybe next time.

Rustle has already detailed what constitutes SSEs and I am surprised that given the figures as presented and the description of the 'problem' in the thread that the tone of your response would seem to question the significance and quantity of the 'problem'.

The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.

I come from the world of science. We question everything.

In any aspect of risk management, it's important to quantify real risk. If we don't do that, we end up in a world dominated by perceived risk where the management decisions are taken on the basis of tabloid "Phew-that-was-close" headlines.

"SSE" and "loss of separation" is all very well as labels. But aircraft don't occupy a volume of 100 cubic miles, thus "loss of separation" and "collision" are very different things.

AlanM

6th Sep 2006, 13:33

bookie - your thoughts are not a million miles from almost ALL ATCOs....

But our management and the regulator disagrees..... and it is the ATCO who is immediately taken out of the seat whilst the event is investigated on radar replays and RT recordings.

Warped Factor

6th Sep 2006, 14:19

In any aspect of risk management, it's important to quantify real risk. If we don't do that, we end up in a world dominated by perceived risk where the management decisions are taken on the basis of tabloid "Phew-that-was-close" headlines.
"SSE" and "loss of separation" is all very well as labels. But aircraft don't occupy a volume of 100 cubic miles, thus "loss of separation" and "collision" are very different things.

I'm only a humble atco, some folk much cleverer than me (including from the scientific community) have come up with our SSE scale and that's what we use to score events.

The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum ;)

WF.

dublinpilot

6th Sep 2006, 15:10

WE DON'T REFUSE GA WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE... We just don't have the TIME to deal with everyone outside CAS.

Alan,

Can I ask you if you have the TIME to deal with everyone who wants to go into CAS?

I ask because some of the comments here seem to suggest that the constraint is controller workload rather than not enough free airspace. I may have picked that up wrong, but I'd be interested in the answer.

If the airspace is full, that's one thing. But if it's simply a case of too few controllers that's a different thing.

I wouldn't blame any ATCer for refusing a transit of the CAS under their control because they don't have time. I can imagine that if I were to become an ATCer I'd have great intentions of helping GA across 'my' CAS, but after my boss had asked me to explain a couple of times why an inbound airliner was slightly delayed when I rerouted them to accommodate a transit, I know my great intentions would disappear and I'd gradually become very familiar with the phrase "Remain outside controlled airspace".

The fast that you manage to accommodate most of your airspace transit requests is of great credit to you.

I can also understand the airport manager ringing the ATC manager to find out why an airliner was delayed. After all he's going to be sitting around a board room table trying to explain to an airline why they should expand services at his airport, when they experience less delays at the airport next door. Not an easy job either. In his position I've little doubt I'd be insisting to my ATC manager that he minimise delays anyway possible.

Is there a counter balance to these commercial pressures? Is there someone in the CAA or DAP who must inspect each unit to ensure that they are sufficiently staffed, and that transits are not regularly refuses because of controller workload? That's not something I know anything about, and I would be interested in the answer, and in knowing if there is such an agency have they got teeth, and do they use them?

After all, if an airport was looking to get CAS, and in their proposal they said we'll have enough controllers to control all inbound and outbound aircraft, and 60% of those wanting to transit the airspace (even though there is enough airspace to accommodate 100% of the requested transits) then they would be unlikely to be successful. Rightly so in my opinion.

I see a similar situation in my own professions. I am an accountant and as such regularly am engaged in audit work. My clients pay the bills, so when they want something I must try my best to ensure that they are happy. Occasionally they would see something in a light that I would not consider acceptable within the rules in which we operate. In a purely commercial world, this can bring significant pressure on an auditor. The counter balance is the fact that if I bend those rules, my professional body may pick up on it in one of their inspections, and I could loose my practicing certificate and my livelihood. That helps significantly to keep the commercial pressures in check ;)

Is there something similar in the ATC world, and does it work? Or is it a case that (as it would seem from anecdotal evidence only) that workload and commercial pressures play a big part in refused airspace transits, rather than simply airspace congestion?

dp

Johnm

6th Sep 2006, 15:37

As the poor b*gg*r who clipped Luton when my GPS packed up in IMC under IFR(and who was referred to about page 3 of this thread), I feel I can comment with some authority.

I ALWAYS call the nearest ATCU when I'm passing nearby or want transit, unless I truly can't get word in edgewise and I like the muppets who recite their life stories as much as AlanM does. Usually I'll request FIS, but I'll ask for and get RIS if I'm IMC because strangely enough controllers aren't usually very busy when the weather's crap. I'll plan on transit and ask for it (and usually get it) if the route round is significant, otherwise I'll route clear.

In the case of my own infringment I was talking to the unit in question (Luton are unfailingly helpful) and my error was to forget that steam driven navigation is significantly less accurate than GPS. Otherwise I'd have routed five degrees North and never entered the zone. As it was I maintained my original track with steam aids and ended up half a mile in the zone. Whereupon the kind controller tactfully mentioned the fact to me and gave me a vector for my destination.

S-Works

6th Sep 2006, 15:37

The trouble with being perfect is that lots of other people spend an inordinate amount of time either trying to prove you are not perfect or simply relishing the day when the inevitable 'fall from grace' exposes one's fallibilities. Fortunately, I am incapable of sitting myself on quite such a high pedestal and find some solace in that my regularly exposed failings are generally tolerated by friends, colleagues and casual observers because I am prepared to listen and learn from others. ;)

I am sorry but where did I claim to be perfect or put myself on a pedastal? I stated that I was striving to learn as much as possible about the subject to ensure I did not become one of the airspace busts you despise so much.

I think if you are going to try and make me look like a stupid ego maniac you might want to actually read the post otherwise you run the risk of making yourself look stupid......

mm_flynn

6th Sep 2006, 15:41

don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum ;)
WF.

As an interested participant, I am keen to learn more about why these events happen so that I can minimise my chance of being involved. Because most of the data seems to be internal/confidential, I at the moment have -

1 - the fact that 38 times in 2005 an infringing aircraft was within 5000 feet and 5 miles of an IFR flight being controlled by NATS
2 - That on 12 of those occasions it was 'close'
3 - A trawl of the airprox reports which seems to tells me most risk bearing incidents are outside of controlled airspace
4 - No joy yet in finding a match of an airprox against the 12 ocasions of SSE 1 or 2 - so no insight into the circumstances
5 - Some howling examples of poor airmanship, but not clearly linked to the 38 high/medium risk incidents.

Finally, I am pretty sure that there isn't public access to the MOR data - is that true? has anyone filed a FOIA request for this information to place it in the public domain?

Finally, the output from the flyontrack project seems to indicate there are a multitude of causes well beyond PPLs have gotten worse at navigation (which may well be true!). This implies public education campaigns will do little to address the problem and that improvements to 'the system' need to be made. But without the data, we are not really in a position to make constructive comments.

AlanM

6th Sep 2006, 16:34

dp - no we don't have the time to speak to everyone who wants to enter the zone immediately. However, they are more likely to accept a hold outside if we are too busy. We do of course try to make time.

90% of the transits through the LCY zone for instance need to work LCY tower as therer is almost always a police helicopter or helimed or non-standard flight in the zone that they are working against the IFRs. Therefore, we hae to pass the full details of your flight over the phone (just because the RT is busy it doesn't mean that there is nothing going on!) We may also need to co-ordinate your flights with Heathrow SVFR as you may be routeing near their traffic. And guess what, the other people are busy too with traffic and quite often it can take 60 seconds to pass the details as I tell aircraft to standby, and the tower controller tells traffic to standby.

It doesn't make it impossible, just time consuming as another 3 call to tell you their life story, that they are at Rochester going North East bound.

Time is of the essence, so the more RT/Phone time wasted means less aircraft get a service. I can sit and collect callsigns on a FIS all day, but then the chances of getting through the zone diminish as separating IFR traffic is my priority.

Of course, if we had more staff EVERYWHERE it would help.

Not sure it would help zone infringements though. As I said yesterday we often get traffic in the zone which can be followed for 80 miles and calls no-one. Not even the two LARS units or D&D.

chevvron

6th Sep 2006, 16:50

I believe the 5000ft for vertical separation dates back to the days of height finder radars (the nodding ones not the T82 stacked beam and similar radars); the blips were so big that you had to take 5000ft on whatever height was indicated to make sure of vertical separation, and this was simply carried over with no form of scientific proof when mode C became widely available.

zkdli

6th Sep 2006, 17:42

MM FLYNN
AIRPROX reports do indeed show more risk bearing incidents outside CAS. But an AIRPROX report is not necessarily filed for the most serious losses of separation because the definition of an AIRPROX is so subjective (go to the UKAB website to check)
There is no separation criteria for an AIRPROX. That said I am pretty sure that the 757 pilot who had a close encounter with a glider in the Birmingham zone thought his aircraft was at risk - ATC didn't see it, the pilot only saw it fill his windscreen!
Also for most AIRPROX in CAS one or both aircraft have TCAS and if it activates 9 times out of 10 the board will decide that there was no risk as TCAS stopped the possibility of a collision. This of course would not be the case if one aircraft did not have MODE "A" or "C"...
All losses of separation at NATS units are investigated on behalf of SRG by the NATS investigation departments. Their reports are all forwarded to SRG. I am sure that if you requested information from SRG they would answer your questions!:(
For a little more info - in 2006 so far there have been double the reported losses of separation compared with the total of 2005. Probably not because there are more infringements but more reporting. This is happening so that NATS knows the full problem:)

bookworm

6th Sep 2006, 18:01

All losses of separation at NATS units are investigated on behalf of SRG by the NATS investigation departments. Their reports are all forwarded to SRG. I am sure that if you requested information from SRG they would answer your questions!:(

I think the key is that if the details of all 200 infringements are published, we can all learn from them and take steps to avoid infringements in the future. If you merely chalk up statistics, it gives the impression that NATS is trying to make a case without proper analysis.

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2006, 20:26

AlanM

So since this thread has become a general debate about CAS clearances, controller work load etc I would be grateful for an answer to the question asked in my earlier post .. .. ..

so why is it too many controllers (when need arises) simply say remain outside of CAS rather than "remain outside of CAS, you can expect clearance in x minutes". As I said earlier, when a CAS transit is refused we have to make a decision whether to route around or orbit, and a simple remain outside is of little help.

It should also be born in mind that for some (including me) I expect to be given a transit (and indeed in my experience it is a long time since one was refused). Given the expectation this naturally positions the aircraft close to CAS. A transit refusal inevitably will result in the aircraft routing close but around CAS. I make no excuses for pilots who then inadvertently infringe but offer this as an explanation as to why if more transits are refused more aircraft end up routing around but close to the edge of CAS. Moreover, these aircraft are potentially not receiving a service, but the consequence of the refusal is to channel aircraft into narrow corridors increasing the risk of collision and therefore increasing their need for a RIS, which some will request but also will find refused.

I accept the argument that aircraft in these situations could elect to avoid the edges of CAS by a greater margin, but all this argument achieves is to effectively increase the size of CAS. Moreover it is human nature if you are operating to a schedule, to take the shortest route between two points.

My point therefore is to illustrate why CAS clearances are so important, why if they cannot be offered immediately an indication of how long the delay will be, and why if a refusal is given the chances of an infringement increases because pilots will be tempted to “hug” the edge of CAS and finally why the risk of collision increases outside of CAS following a clearance refusal particularly if a RIS is also refused.

In terms of the debate on the confidential recording of infringements both the freedom of information and the data protection act spring to mind. Moreover I do not think there is a great deal of public, never mind professional sympathy for any organisation that collates information of this type which clearly has a vital impact on safety and yet is not prepared to publish the information. If I were involved in such a dubious practice I suspect I would not be “boasting” about my having the statistical data at the same time as declaring my unwillingness to reveal the same!

SensibleATCO

6th Sep 2006, 20:38

As the poor b*gg*r who clipped Luton when my GPS packed up in IMC under IFR(and who was referred to about page 3 of this thread), I feel I can comment with some authority.
Far from it :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Anyone STUPID ENOUGH to be flying IMC in that area and relying solely on a GPS cannot speak with any authority whatsoever. Is it any wonder that infringements are up given this sort of nonsense and complete lack of flying ability.
NATS needs to take a much firmer stance with this sort of incident. I am not anti GA, I have been flying all types of GA aircrfat for over 20 years. However standards have been slipping for some time now and I feel that all such incidents as this should be filed and then let the courts take the appropriate action. It is the only way certain sectors of the GA community will learn.

IO540

6th Sep 2006, 20:51

So flying in IMC and relying on a single VOR is OK then.

No difference; just that GPS is the work of the devil and a VOR receiver can never go wrong.

One should always back up any nav method with a different one (and I personally always do that) but that doesn't change the fact that if one's VOR receiver packed up it would never get the emphasis which a duff GPS (which is much less common) gets routinely.

:ugh:

SensibleATCO

6th Sep 2006, 20:58

So flying in IMC and relying on a single VOR is OK then.
I didn't say that, but since you ask the question, NO. Both methods are just as stupid as each other.

spikeair

6th Sep 2006, 21:02

My comments.
I'm really concerned with some of the attitudes being expressed between ATC and GA pilots, seems to be very much a them and us.

I've been flying now for about 4 years and have been very impressed with ATC.
Infringements can obviosuly occur for a number of reasons , I infringed once , a height bust while being distracted on the radio trying to get a RIS from a military LARS unit and being given a strange frequency , when I eventually contacted them on my original freqency I had in advertantly climbed up into the LTMA buy about 400ft. Was told to descend immedialty which i did and spoke to Heathrow later that day to apoligise. luckily no incident as a result.

Since passing my PPL, I have not used GPS but use Radio navigation instead. To be honest I find dead reckoning difficult, as an example, if you were to fly from around farnbough through Biggin Hill and out the other side looking outside using DR only, that would be quite difficult as the features are quite hard to distinguish in my opinion.(May be I'm just not good at it but I feel mistakes could easily be made on this example route)
Obviosly using VORs, it is easier and that does allow you to tick off features enroute to confirm that your route is ok.
I also think a London LARS would be a very good idea, I know pilots are reponsible for their navigation but a polite tap on the shoulder if you are veirying of course would be good, also the ability to fly IFR in IMC around London would also be of use for those of us that have IMC ratings.

I thought the training I had as a PPL was very good, my instructure was not someone who was doing his 2 years before going inot the airline business, he had been teaching PPLs for quite some time so felt very comfortable with him, he taought a very common sense approach.
I also feel that I got a good appreciation of who and when to speak to in ATC.
I have only ever once been refused a (IFR)Zone transit and that was becasue they only had primary radar working at the time and were busy. I had already preplanned a route around the CAS using otehr nav aids so this was no big deal, just added anotehr 10 minutes or so to the route.
All otehr VFR and IFR zone transits have been met, the key though I think (and perhaps the IMC rating helps here) is to ask for a resonable route and height. Askign for a VFR route at 2000 ft through an instrument approach is unliekly to be met unless they are particualry quiet.
PPLs who have not got a IMC rating may not realise where the instrument traffic is going to go as the procedures are not shown on the VFR maps, and practially speaking, they can't really.

AlanM

6th Sep 2006, 21:10

Fuji, if i had time on the Rt to make a long winded transmission explaining why I am unable to give you clearance, when it is likely I would do so.
Sadly I do not have time. Maybe we should have time. But we don't. (Oh and I normally say "Remain Outside I will call you back if I have time") which hopefully you will see as me beingvery busy (as most fail to correlate the 120 secs of solid headings/levels as being busy)

What makes me really laugh, is why no-one calls up Heathrow and insists that they be allowed to transit the field overhead. No-one seems to bitch about that but they bitch about crossing Stansted! (and LHR has a dedicated frequency!!!)

Very bizarre.

zkdli

6th Sep 2006, 21:21

Bookworm,
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?
Unfortunately as has been said before LARS does not pay and NATS is required by law to reduce costs to users but not make a loss. Other pilots on this forum don't believe that LARS is the panacea to this problem.
when it comes down to it, all it will take to change things in the UK will be one midair with an infringing aircraft - no one wants that.
So what do you think can be done to reduce the risk?:sad:

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2006, 21:23

"Fuji, if i had time on the Rt to make a long winded transmission explaining why I am unable to give you clearance, when it is likely I would do so."

That is not what I said.

There are three alternatives in response to a request for zone transit:

"remain outside of CAS"

"remain outside of CAS, onward clearance expected in x minutes"

"remain ourside of CAS, clearance will not be given".

Long winded - no - five or six extra words.

After all transit has been requested, remain outside is not an answer. Being provocative the pilot is entitled to say I asked for transit, is it going to be given in due course and if so when, all of which takes up more of your time and his. Rightly or wrongly I will always ask the question if I get the first response becasue I need to decide whether to orbit and wait or route around.

In so far as Heathrow transits are concerned they provide an excellent SVFR service via the recognised corridors which I have never had refused. An overhead transit is not really relevant unless in a twin because it does not lead from or to anywhere of practical or legal use.

ShyTorque

6th Sep 2006, 21:47

AlanM is, in my experience, one of the more helpful ATCOs. We transit his part of the world quite often; he always tries his best to accommodate all of us and works damned hard to do so when he might well be justified in saying he couldn't provide a service due to controller workload.

Not surprisingly, he (and all of his colleagues) do have some bad days due to factors "beyond his control", he's only human after all (well, almost ;) - he is ATC, after all :E ).

We try to listen out for a while to assess the controller's workload before transmitting for a service or crossing. If it's busy (for example, a previous caller told to "stand by") and where there is an alternative we sometimes just opt for "plan B" and go round the outside of the airspace without calling, gleaning what we can from r/t calls of others. It's surprising that many pilots don't listen and think before asking. For example, someone said that Luton controllers are particularly unhelpful. In my experience they certainly aren't unhelpful - but it's not advisable to request a crossing of the centreline at a height/distance that will conflict with ILS traffic, especially at busy times. Some do ask, even when it's so busy on the frequency that it's very difficult to get a word in edgeways. Common sense says that they aren't likely to get their clearance, epecially if the r/t sounds a little hesitant when asked for their present position....

BTW, Anyone else notice it's often those with a sticky plummy accent and who insist on saying "over"? :rolleyes:

Warped Factor

6th Sep 2006, 22:00

In terms of the debate on the confidential recording of infringements both the freedom of information and the data protection act spring to mind. Moreover I do not think there is a great deal of public, never mind professional sympathy for any organisation that collates information of this type which clearly has a vital impact on safety and yet is not prepared to publish the information. If I were involved in such a dubious practice I suspect I would not be “boasting” about my having the statistical data at the same time as declaring my unwillingness to reveal the same!

I don't know where anyone is boasting about having the data but keeping it a secret. All that I've seen said is that nobody from NATS, well those that wish to remain employed, are going to go in to any detail on internal NATS processes here.

As has been mentioned already infringements are reported by NATS to the CAA under the MOR scheme and that information is published by the CAA so why should NATS also have to publish the same information a second time?

WF.

Single Spey

6th Sep 2006, 22:12

Common sense says that they aren't likely to get their clearance, epecially if the r/t sounds a little hesitant when asked for their present position....

BTW, Anyone else notice it's often those with a sticky plummy accent and who insist on saying "over"? :rolleyes:

OK, as a pilot can I reserve the right when I get a controller who is a little hesitant or speaks with a plummy accent to ask for another more confident and experienced controller to handle my request?:ok:

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2006, 22:21

I don't know where anyone is boasting about having the data but keeping it a secret.

The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum

As has been mentioned already infringements are reported by NATS to the CAA under the MOR scheme and that information is published by the CAA so why should NATS also have to publish the same information a second time?

If the CAA are publishing the same statistical information as NATS are recording then you are correct.

I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!

ShyTorque

6th Sep 2006, 22:24

OK, as a pilot can I reserve the right when I get a controller who is a little hesitant or speaks with a plummy accent to ask for another more confident and experienced controller to handle my request?:ok:

Yes, I strongly advise you to try it. :D :E

P.S. Please let me know when - I want to be there!

bookworm

7th Sep 2006, 05:31

Bookworm,
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?

Not "getting at" anyone, but a little surprised that the data is not more readily available. I can read about every AAIB field report in the last few years online. That helps me avoid similar mistakes to those featured in some of the reports. I've never seen a detailed report on an MOR investigation, even one in which I've been involved myself.

rustle

7th Sep 2006, 07:46

I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!

Idiotic comments like this make me wish I'd never posted the stats in the first place and will undoubtedly make it more difficult to maintain the [thus far fantastic] level of openness from NATS folk actually involved in tracking and tackling the problem of increasing CAS busts. :ugh:

Your little conspiracy world doesn't need any help from me: You're more than capable of dreaming it up by yourself... :rolleyes:

skydriller

7th Sep 2006, 08:14

Anyone STUPID ENOUGH to be flying IMC in that area and relying solely on a GPS cannot speak with any authority whatsoever. Is it any wonder that infringements are up given this sort of nonsense and complete lack of flying ability.

Sensible, RTFP!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

If you had read and quoted ALL what Johnm said :In the case of my own infringment I was talking to the unit in question (Luton are unfailingly helpful) and my error was to forget that steam driven navigation is significantly less accurate than GPS. Otherwise I'd have routed five degrees North and never entered the zone. As it was I maintained my original track with steam aids and ended up half a mile in the zone. Whereupon the kind controller tactfully mentioned the fact to me and gave me a vector for my destination.

If you had read and digested the above, you will have seen that he WAS using BACKUP traditional nav techniques, which turned out (funnily enough!!) not to be as accurate as his PRIMARY nav source (the GPS) which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the best form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!

Regards, SD..

slim_slag

7th Sep 2006, 09:21

Positive marks to JOhnm for admitting a mistake and publicising it for others to learn from. -ve marks to people who have a go at him.

This thread has similar undertones to another on this site and that is pilots do like to blame ATC. Isn't the goal one where you don't need to talk to a controller in order to fly from A-B? I don't want to talk to a damned controller most of the time, it gets in the way of just bimbling along and he might require me to do things that make me think.

Take a look at the Los Angeles Terminal Area chart. Now that is what I call busy airspace, nothing like that in Europe, I suggest. On the back is a nice diagram of the area with lots of lovely visual reference points, and thick blue lines with arrows and altitudes on them. These are visual routes which you follow in order to get through SOCAL airspace without having to talk to a controller.

The airspace is properly designed for both IFR and VFR traffic, and the chart makes it easier to see the edges.

SOrt the airspace out so we don't need to depend on the goodwill of a controller to get from A-B. That will reduce airproxes and infringements. Not bring it down to zero, but the only way to do that is to ban commercial traffic, and that will never happen :)

Kirstey

7th Sep 2006, 09:44

At risk of being labelled as 'stroppy' by the uninformed I fully endorse TC_LTN's excellent post :D
Oh, and it's 'biennial', by the way..........

I was only pulling your leg.. if you take my tongue in cheek comment in context of the debate up to my post as opposed accross all 6 pages of the slanging match you'll see!! Apologies for any offence!

and you'd be suprised.. i'm very very well informed!!

dublinpilot

7th Sep 2006, 10:10

My reading of JohnM's post is that he did have an acceptable backup method of navigation, and was able to quickly transition to it when this GPS failed.

It also seems that he accuratly flew his backup navigation method. Unfortunatley the instruments themselves didn't have the accuracy one would expect from a GPS.

Hardly an argument for not using GPS.

Well done JohnM for having a backup method and being able to quickly transition to it. It's just unfortunate that that method isn't as reliable and accurate as GPS.

OK, as a pilot can I reserve the right when I get a controller who is a little hesitant or speaks with a plummy accent to ask for another more confident and experienced controller to handle my request?

SS, that has to be one of the funniest comments I've read here in a long time ;) Thank you for injecting a little light humour into this thread :)

dp

Fuji Abound

7th Sep 2006, 11:13

Well done for removing the stats. - you shouldnt have been publishing confidential information here anyway and it would seem no one was very interested :) .

I wonder who will pop up next?

SensibleATCO

7th Sep 2006, 13:37

If you had read and digested the above, you will have seen that he WAS using BACKUP traditional nav techniques, which turned out (funnily enough!!) not to be as accurate as his PRIMARY nav source (the GPS) which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the best form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!

Skydriller, UTFP !!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
He infringed because he was relying on GPS.
WAS using BACKUP traditional nav techniques,
Clearly not very well otherwise he would not have infringed.
Which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the worst form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!

skydriller

7th Sep 2006, 14:13

He infringed because he was relying on GPS.
Clearly not very well otherwise he would not have infringed.
Which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the worst form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

No, No, No.....He infringed because traditional nav (which he was using at the time of the bust) is not as accurate as the GPS he had planned on using, and was originally using, which had failed on him. read DPs post 2 above yours, maybe he is better at articulating it than I am?

I also say welldone Johnm for having, and being able to transition to, backup nav. methods, and for being in contact with the relavent unit at the time too - good job they didnt just say "remain clear of controlled airspace - goodbye!" isnt it?

Regards, SD..

PS..Johnm, hope we havent scared you off!!

SensibleATCO

7th Sep 2006, 15:06

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
I understand exactly the reasons as to why the infringement occured.
Unlike yourself, I do not accept them as an excuse for the infringement.

Warped Factor

7th Sep 2006, 15:48

I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!

Nothing that rustle put on here was confidential.

All SSEs do is establish the safety significance of an incident to NATS for NATS own safety auditing purposes.

That's all, no secret codes or conspiracies and the information used is the same as will have been submitted to the CAA in the MOR.

The end of the SSE debate, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

WF.

Vedeneyev

7th Sep 2006, 15:53

Warped Factor

7th Sep 2006, 16:10

So if there aren't enough controllers to effectively administer allocated CAS on behalf of ALL airspace users, then why not reduce the amount of CAS... Remind me when was the last time any LHR traffic flew over Elstree anywhere close to 2500' ??
(duck and cover)

Quite possible for LHR traffic carrying out a missed approach from the northerly runway to overfly Elstree at 3,000ft.

Then don't forget Northolt arrivals/departures and some Luton routes as well...

WF.

Fuji Abound

7th Sep 2006, 16:43

"The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum"

Sorry if my comments impacted on a sensitive issue.

This was what was said from which I assumed that NATS keep more detailed information on controllers perception of the risk conseqeunces of an infringement. In short I was reacting to the post, the suggestion (which may well have been tongue in cheek) that it was not for public consumption and the implication that the scale of risk is not associated with the information passed on to the CAA. Persoanlly I would have thought that information would have been useful to enable a wider audience to assess the extent of the problem. Presumably some scoring system is used and presumably this is indeed some form of code in a loose sense.

So if this information isnt confidential or if I have misunderstood then doubtless those who can will clarrify the matter in a measured way without having to resort to the usual personal abuse.

If it is confidential then presumably there would be no objection to an outline of how the system works, how infringements are actually scored (for internal auditing purposes) and whether this information would give an additional insight into the extent of the problem over and beyond the reports passed to the CAA and why if it is the case NATS feel this information should not be made available.

Warped Factor

7th Sep 2006, 17:56

This really is my last post on SSEs.

Try googling, you might find out a little more info.

I've said as much as I'm going to say on SSEs because it is not my place to go into any greater detail on an anonymous internet forum. Hopefully you can understand that!

If you really are interested in the SSE scheme and how it works contact the right people officially and I would hope you'd get a positive response which you could then make available yourself to a wider audience. Some research on the NATS www site should point you in the right direction.

WF.

WorkingHard

7th Sep 2006, 18:13

rustle

7th Sep 2006, 19:34

There does seem to be a polarisation here between pilots and controllers. On another thread Bright-Ling who list his occupation as a controller said "Great - it works.

How many whingeing PPLs left.....??????"

Is this really how the people who keep controllers in work are viewed?
Comments like your last sentence are going to help no end.

Most of the informed (infringement) input in this thread has come from ATCOs and I'm sure if they didn't give a **** about GA/pilots they wouldn't bother.

All of the infringement discussions at clubs/schools etc (as I detailed previously) are undertaken by ATCOs in their own time. Would they do that if they didn't give a **** about GA/pilots?

There are occasional dummy-spits in here between controller and pilot, but no more or less than between any two groups of people who see things from different perspectives ;)

WorkingHard

7th Sep 2006, 19:41

Rustle I was just reflecting what appeared to be the gist of what this thread is now - polarisation. I did not say I agree with it. In fact as I have said often on some of the threads I have found worthwhile reading I have the utmost respect (and generally utmost help) from the ATCO fraternity. It does not apply to all any more than any adjective can apply to all GA pilots. May I just also say that a lot of GA is for business use and it is not always desirable to fly IFR or via an airway so please dont "lump" all GA in the weekend PPL flyer category. The weekend PPL flyer may not be as practised as some but they have same rights to respect and service as the rest and may, just may, need a litte more help and understanding when things go slightly awry.

Fuji Abound

7th Sep 2006, 20:16

WF

Thanks for your response.

Actually, and clearly this may surprise you, I am interested.

I have no issues what so ever with the way controllers operate CAS. I may disagree with certain aspects of policy but that is a different matter. In fact as I have said before I can barely recall the last zone transit refused and in class A the service is first class.

I also appreciate you may not be permitted to comment professionally.

Never the less it is interesting that no one else on this forum (who does not work for NATS) is either able or prepared to comment on the recording system you have alluded to. Surprise you as it might, (and I will do the research) and since this forum is a discussion about CAS infringements, I suspect others would be interested in how NATS categorise infringements and what this data reveals. Moreover I would have thought NATS would be interested in giving you and others permission to explain how the system works.

I don’t agree that most of the informed input on this thread has come from ATCOs. I believe both pilots (who are not ATCOs) and those that are, have made equally good contributions. It is equally important ATCOs appreciate the problems pilots have, and what contributes to infringements. Frankly comments such as “I cant be bothered or I haven’t got time to explain when you might get a transit” are unhelpful because it is dismissive of the needs of GA and dismissive (in my opinion) of the factors that lead to pilots tracking around the edge of CAS (which is not desirable for either party).

How many pilots on here actively seek to avoid CAS transits because they cant be bothered with the hassle?

The views of some ATCOs here (not necessarily on this thread) are far from representative of the many I have met elsewhere. As Rustle quite rightly says, there are a great many that give of their time freely to clubs around the country.

I find it interesting the slatting the chap on here has got because he infringed CAS in IMC when his GPS failed and the assumptions made about what equipment he might or might not have been relying on. Infringement of CAS is inexcusable, but it happens because to make mistakes is human. I can list a fair few mistakes made by ATCOs, one of which nearly cost me my life and resulted in a very full apology. It happens. What is important is why, and what lessons can be learned.

S-Works

7th Sep 2006, 20:20

I can remember a controller making a mistake as well on my "airspace bust", debated very fully on these forums.....

We are all human and all make mistakes. The reason I went off on one in the first place was to emphasise the fact that your average inexperianced PPL is going to make mistakes and could really do with the support of the ground infrastructure that is supposed to support all air traffic.

Not a fault of the controllers but I suspect very much a fault of the bean counters at NATS.

zkdli

7th Sep 2006, 21:18

For those interested NATS does not categorise infringements separately to other incidents. Any incident that results in a loss of Separation is investigated as is required by SRG. The report is passed to SRG. The Safety Significance Event scheme(SSEscheme) is a NATS way of categorising how serious the loss of separation actually was.
The SSE scheme is based around what resolved the incident and how close the aircraft came to each other. The categories go from 4 (the lowest) to 1 (good luck kept them apart).
If you are intersted get a visit to a centre. During your visit (if its LTCC) you will see example of infringements and the SSE scheme would be explained if you ask:)

Fuji Abound

7th Sep 2006, 21:33

zkdli

Thank you for such a straight forward and clear explanation.

A shame it couldnt have been dealt with by others equally clearly.

Is the SSE information passed on to the CAA and are any statistics published in the public domain which would indicate the spread of total infringements between categories?

Final 3 Greens

7th Sep 2006, 21:54

I must say as a disinterested observer (I don't fly in the UK and so have no axe to grind) that I find some of the comments of some of the ATCOs on this forum to be arrogant and inflammatory.

It does not give a good impression of the profession, but is sadly in line with the observable behaviors of some people in the UK service sectors who seem to think that the customers are dirt.

Customers, because although the airlines pay directly for NATS, they don't pay VAT on fuel, which therefore means that there is a large gap in government revenue and the result of that is that the books need to be balanced by extra taxes in other areas, with the result that general public (including PPLs) subsidise airline travel, thus offsetting the cost of NATS.

IO540

8th Sep 2006, 05:09

Well, what a thread. Been away for a few days and can't possibly read it all.

There are just 3 ways I know of to make anybody perform better (whether it is flying, driving, sex, whatever)

1. Selection

There is none in the PPL training. Ability is not accessed (and varies widely). Anybody who can pay for the next lesson can come along, and most can get a PPL if they hang around for long enough.

2. Training

This one we could debate but ultimately the syllabus must be taught, and since "nobody" wants a longer (read: "more expensive") PPL course, you can't add extra stuff.

Much as many, myself included, like to have a dig at the ATPL hour builders that predominate in the PPL training scene, I don't blame them for the WW1 syllabus. Many may be poor flying instructors (in the sense that they are not good natural teachers) but most have, or are about to, pass the vast JAA ground school and are thus definitely not stupid, and are well capable of teaching procedural matters. And CAS busts are procedural failures, not flying failures.

The ontrack survey is largely a waste of time because it fails to identify the exact procedural factors that led to the errors.

3. Better equipment or procedures

What could one do? Dead reckoning is never going to improve (for a given level/type of pilot selection and training) no matter how long people rant on about it. GPS usage should be brought into the PPL as standard, but this can't be done without making GPS installation mandatory in training planes, which the flight training business will be dead against, which means it will never happen.

This thread has moved on to ATC procedures but I don't see where these come in. If a pilot isn't navigating then he will bust anyway. I suppose one could abolish CAS, then CAS busts would not happen, but this isn't exactly likely! I suppose that if CAS transits were readily granted (as in the USA, two-way comms are sufficient to enter Class D; the problem here is that the UK operates D as if it was B/C) then fewer people would be skirting around the edges of CAS, but this still isn't a solution to poor navigation because if you are allowed a CAS transit, the ATCO expects you to fully know what you are doing and not fly some zigzag track.

The UK has very little CAS. If people are busting it comprehensively (rather than going half a mile in, on a track parallel to the boundary) then something is going very badly wrong.

flower

8th Sep 2006, 07:25

You have to wonder why any of us ATCOs even bother to come into this forum with the way we are constantly flamed and told by armchair critics how badly we do our job.
I work a Class D zone, in 15 years of ATC I have refused zone transits on 2 occasions. The first there was SAROPS on in the Zone and impossible to accommodate so I gave navigational assistance to the pilot to give him the shortest possible diversion, the second the pilots English was so poor that we were unable to get any understanding between the two of us, so Poor infact that a very stern phone call was made to his flying school advising that if they allowed him up again without a pilot unable to communicate with ATC then action would be taken against them.
I am sure that I am the norm rather than the rare ATCO as I know my colleagues would find it very hard to find a time they refused transits.

As for arrogance, well when you find people with limited knowledge telling you how badly you do your job when you know full well you go the extra mile to accommodate them ,and I come into the same Category as Alan M here , I'm well known for friendly and helpful attitude towards GA and the comments directed towards him are extremely unfair.

As for GA paying our wages, no sorry you don't it is a myth the VAT you pay on fuel comes no where near us, speak to the chancellor as to where that goes but it doesn't come into our coffers.

ATCOs don't cause Zone infringements, the number of times I have given a zone transit to pilots who haven't requested one whereas if they had continued on their track they would have infringed without a clearance, probably at least 10 a week. Something is woefully wrong, you cannot blame the CAS it has been there some time it is time something was done to improve awareness. Most ATC units welcome visitors, many ATCOs fly and freely give their time to educate pilots in many aspects of aviation. The likes of Mike T and many of my colleagues have roadshows being organised to try to educate about this, ATC is doing everything they possibly can to try to sort it but it is the Pilots who need to do something more.

rustle

8th Sep 2006, 07:55

Customers, because although the airlines pay directly for NATS, they don't pay VAT on fuel, which therefore means that there is a large gap in government revenue and the result of that is that the books need to be balanced by extra taxes in other areas, with the result that general public (including PPLs) subsidise airline travel, thus offsetting the cost of NATS.

As for GA paying our wages, no sorry you don't it is a myth the VAT you pay on fuel comes no where near us, speak to the chancellor as to where that goes but it doesn't come into our coffers.

Flower, I don't think Final 3 Greens was suggesting the VAT on fuel is hypothecated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecate) but that in a roundabout way (because airlines don't pay VAT on fuel) some of the money the airlines would have paid in VAT is paid instead to NATS, and that we (taxpayers) are left picking up the "shortfall"* in the VAT bill.

(* It isn't really a shortfall as it was never there in the first place, but you get the idea ;))

Apols to F3G if I have misunderstood...

Having written it down I no longer agree with him, though. :O :ooh:

Warped Factor

8th Sep 2006, 11:02

zkdli
Thank you for such a straight forward and clear explanation.
A shame it couldnt have been dealt with by others equally clearly.

My identity behind this user name is quite well known. I apologise profusely for allowing any concerns I personally might have about how putting more detailed information about my company's procedures on this website sits against my terms and conditions of employment. I'll know your curiosity should take precedence in future, however.

:rolleyes:

Is the SSE information passed on to the CAA and are any statistics published in the public domain which would indicate the spread of total infringements between categories?

The information is not, to my knowledge, in the public domain in any great detail from the NATS pov. Just broad figures/trends. You'd probably need to make an official approach to ask for sight of it.

WF.

yakker

8th Sep 2006, 18:31

ATC talk about 'life stories' being transmitted, what does that mean? It would help if you make it clear exactly what you expect us PPL's to say.

I do agree with Fuji on
"remain outside of CAS"
"remain outside of CAS, onward clearance expected in x minutes"
"remain ourside of CAS, clearance will not be given".
the earlier we know about clearance the less chance of an infringement, and an alternative routing being used.

AlanM, you said "Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS". Okay but when I left Tollerton heading south I stayed under the CTA, but listened to East Midlands. The ATC spoke to an aircraft about 'unkown traffic' from the information I knew he was refering to me. At this point I did wonder if I should have spoken to East Midlands, I would then not have been unknown,
and my intentions would have been clear. All parties would know where I was going at that I was aware of the CTA and would not be infringing.

IO540

8th Sep 2006, 19:14

What is the data on the % of CAS busts v. how many were in contact with that ATC unit?

My impression is that most potentially serious busts are done as major nav errors, by non-radio flights (by non-radio I mean not talking to a radar unit; e.g. talking to London Info is going to be of no help)

As for "unknown traffic", if every such traffic called up some unit, the whole system would collapse. The UK ATS system is not geared up for providing any kind of services outside CAS to everybody who wants it - not by a factor of ten times. Far too many little planes flying about. It might just work in OVC007 weather when there is very little GA traffic anyway.

Warped Factor

8th Sep 2006, 19:22

My impression is that most potentially serious busts are done as major nav errors, by non-radio flights (by non-radio I mean not talking to a radar unit; e.g. talking to London Info is going to be of no help)

This (http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/londonfis.pdf) may be of interest.

WF.

Warped Factor

8th Sep 2006, 19:28

ATC talk about 'life stories' being transmitted, what does that mean? It would help if you make it clear exactly what you expect us PPL's to say.

Essentially as little as possible. There have been various threads on this subject here and on the Flyer Forum, might be worth having a search before covering it all again on this one.

AlanM, you said "Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS". Okay but when I left Tollerton heading south I stayed under the CTA, but listened to East Midlands. The ATC spoke to an aircraft about 'unkown traffic' from the information I knew he was refering to me. At this point I did wonder if I should have spoken to East Midlands, I would then not have been unknown,
and my intentions would have been clear. All parties would know where I was going at that I was aware of the CTA and would not be infringing.

In the London area it is impracticable to call all the traffic under CAS to the IFR traffic just above inside so we tend not to call any of it unless circumstances demand it.

WF.

Talkdownman

8th Sep 2006, 19:50

It would help if you make it clear exactly what you expect us PPL's to say.
5 Ws=
Who you are, ie. Callsign (I need to know what to call you.)
What you are, ie. Type (I need some idea of your performance.)
Where you are, ie. Position AND Altitude. (I need a clue where to find you.)
Where you want to go, ie. Route/Destination. (I need to make an impact assessment.)
What you want, ie service required. (I need to know how much you need looking after.)
Is that clear enough?

IO540

8th Sep 2006, 20:24

"Starting from November 23rd 2006, all aircraft receiving a flight information
service from “London Information” will be asked to select the transponder
code 7401."

That's a great idea, WR.

But why can't London Info have a screen in front of them? (unofficially)

They manage this in France on their FIS. No radar service as such is provided, but you can be flying along VFR at FL095, through various bits of Class D, and the way they work it is they communicate with you if it's going to be a problem, i.e. if there is conflicting traffic. Seems common sense to me. On a handover, they just say "radar contact" and you get another 20 minutes of silence. They can see where you are, which drastically cuts down the radio traffic.

You can be pedantic and say "request transit of such and such Class D" and the response is something very brief like "proceed".

Could it be to do with ATCO salaries going up if they are radar qualified?

flower

8th Sep 2006, 20:42

The men and woman who provide FIS on London Info are not ATCOs but FISOs hence why they cannot use a radar screen.
It would be excellent if we could have more FISOs and frequencies for them to provide a service over smaller areas, when it is a busy VFR day you often talk over others as the service they provide is so wide spread.

IO540

8th Sep 2006, 20:46

Sorry to sound like I am making a cheap point here Flower but

The men and woman who provide FIS on London Info are not ATCOs but FISOs hence why they cannot use a radar screen

is just like saying that my grandfather was a coalminer, my father was a coalminer, I am a coalminer and YOU MY SON are jolly damn well going down that mine too. My family's HONOUR depends on this tradition.

I bet you that every FISO would give an arm and a leg for a screen. As would most airfield "radio operators". The data is all digital so the cost of yet another feed is not a lot more than a 100 quid LCD screen. The data could be fed all over the place over the internet; HTTPS, (with GPRS/3G fallback).

Fuji Abound

8th Sep 2006, 21:11

WF

"My identity behind this user name is quite well known. I apologise profusely for allowing any concerns I personally might have about how putting more detailed information about my company's procedures on this website sits against my terms and conditions of employment. I'll know your curiosity should take precedence in future, however."

I very much doubt your employer would object to a simple summary such as "The SSE scheme is based around what resolved the incident and how close the aircraft came to each other. The categories go from 4 (the lowest) to 1 (good luck kept them apart)."

and if they do, then one has to wonder why.

Never the less if you thought otherwise I respect your integrity.

eyeinthesky

8th Sep 2006, 21:23

QUOTE
But why can't London Info have a screen in front of them? (unofficially)
UNQUOTE

Perhaps because, generally, they are providing a service across the whole of the London FIR south of 55N. How big would the display screen have to be to be able to display that radar picture in any form which would make the information on it of any use?

rustle

8th Sep 2006, 21:51

I very much doubt your employer would object to a simple summary such as "The SSE scheme is based around what resolved the incident and how close the aircraft came to each other. The categories go from 4 (the lowest) to 1 (good luck kept them apart)."

That was all detailed in a post you said:
Well done for removing the stats. - you shouldnt have been publishing confidential information here anyway and it would seem no one was very interested :) .

about.

Small wonder people cannot be arsed explaining things again if:
...it would seem no one was very interested :) .

When will you make up your mind? :ugh:

flower

8th Sep 2006, 22:01

Sorry to sound like I am making a cheap point here Flower but

I bet you that every FISO would give an arm and a leg for a screen. As would most airfield "radio operators". The data is all digital so the cost of yet another feed is not a lot more than a 100 quid LCD screen. The data could be fed all over the place over the internet; HTTPS, (with GPRS/3G fallback).

I'm sure they would love it but they can't use it for the service they provide so not much point

Fuji Abound

8th Sep 2006, 22:16

Rustle

I know you enjoy the opportunity to comment on my posts and I am glad they amuse you. I shall of course continue to oblige at every opportunity :) .

I assume you posted the data you did for the benefit of everyone - if you decided to remove your data for my benefit then I am chuffed to bits. I am also chuffed to bits that the reason for doing so clearly amused you.

You neither agree with some of the opinions I express and as you have been kind enough to say, feel I am an idiot. Your opinion is not lost on me, but I have no intention of reciprocating or getting involved in a childish exchange with you which simply detracts from the thread.

Post away, but dont expect me to comment on your posts - I shall leave that for others. :)

Final 3 Greens

9th Sep 2006, 01:02

Flower

Please note that I did not personalize my comments about arrogance and I shall not now.

I will merely say that as a professional (masters degree, professional qualifications, fellowship of a trade association etc) I receive a lot of non expert feedback every day about my area of practice.

Some of it is very insightul and some is not; however, a true professional does not "lose it" with an amateur. If someone irritates me, I will be professional and polite and then walk away.

That is the was I was trained to behave and my mentors were peer group recognised as some of the most competent professionals in their field.

IO540

9th Sep 2006, 04:15

Flower

I'm sure they would love it but they can't use it for the service they provide so not much point

That's another piece of the same fixed mindset which prevents any progress. Please read what I actually wrote about the French example.

A controller (of whatever pay grade) would nearly always benefit from radar. He may be prevented from providing a separation service (the French FISOs don't; occassionally they might do so informally) but then UK radar units (I mean LARS in this context) often don't either "due to controller workload".

What the controller will get is the benefit of the whole picture. It drastically cuts down the radio traffic. On the first call, give the man a squawk like 7004 (the next caller gets 7005) and then leave him alone. Whereas you poor FIS bu**ers have to ask for everything right down to the inside leg measurement. And you still don't provide a useful service :ugh: All that London Info is good for is airways clearances, weather, calling up D&D. Not for any normal flying. I haven't called them up since passing my PPL skills test 5-6 years ago. They are OK as a listening watch, in case I have to make a mayday call. A radar unit is much better to talk to.

Instructors love London Info because it's good for training; really ups the workload on the student while he is calculating a diversion... but this is just another piece of the same self-fulfilling apparatus.

If London Info had radar they could prevent many CAS busts before they happened.

englishal

9th Sep 2006, 04:58

I bet you that every FISO would give an arm and a leg for a screen. As would most airfield "radio operators". The data is all digital so the cost of yet another feed is not a lot more than a 100 quid LCD screen. The data could be fed all over the place over the internet; HTTPS, (with GPRS/3G fallback).
When we have ADS-B all airfields, A/G operators and FISOs will be able to have a receiver for probably not more than a few thousand quid.

I must admit that I have given up calling airfields when outside of CAS. I have also called London Info only several times since passing my PPL and Scottish Info - interesingly for a RIS - once. I only bother to call if I want a transit or call a military airfield for a RIS....

Seems to me (as an end user) that the ATC system is too fragmented in the UK, each field operating seperately from everyone else (pretty much). Surely it'd be sensible to have a low level "Tracon" facility split into sectors which can provide all the services required from FIS / RIS to CAS transits lowering the workload of the local approach controllers, yet increasing safety, for commercial traffic as well as GA. (Convert London Info....)

There is no reason why the radar feeds from the military or civil radars can't be piped into a central "bunker" these days and handoffs be automated. Not only would this reduce CAS busts IMO, a form of flow control would be in force - i.e you would know someone wanted to transit the London TMA 30 mins / 1 hour / 2 hours before rather than knocking on the door and asking for a transit......

I was once told by an ATCO in another country that they would prefer you contact them while outside CAS. Their philosophy is that if they tell you what the other traffic is up to, then you won't make a silly mistake and panic and put everyone in danger. One incident I remember is flying up the coast of california outside CAS. A 757 had departed a coastal airport and was heading straight for us. However, we had been told that his altitude was limited to 2000' and he was told we were at 2500'. Had we not been told that we may have decended in "panic". As it was he passed 500' below and it made quite an impressive photograph for my collection.

flower

9th Sep 2006, 06:43

FISOs are not ATCOs thus cannot provide any radar service, it isn't a mindset it is down to qualifications.
As for arrogance and getting riled, I think most of us actually stay quite calm but time and time again although we say no that cannot happen we are told we are wrong.
I fully understand it is difficult to understand the intricacies of licensing and who can do what but when I say FISOs cannot provide Radar services I'm not doing it through some self importance I am saying simply that FISOs are Flight Information Service Officers thus cannot provide a Radar service. Now if you want radar services provided by them speak to NATS management say we want it and let them tell you how much they will charge you for the additional Radar Staff it will require for them to employ.

I think our FISOs who provide London Info are superb, we speak with them all the time coordinating traffic passing details, they are an extremely competent professional bunch of people but they are Not ATCOs thus no Radar service,

zkdli

9th Sep 2006, 07:10

It is forecast to be a great flying weekend - Any guesses how many infringements this weekend:sad:

TC_LTN

9th Sep 2006, 07:25

I think, simply saying that a FISO cannot use a radar display is a little short sighted. As technology advances and the cost of equipment reduces, providing a radar/ADS-B type presentation as an aid to any form of air traffic service is going to be far more cost effective.

We seem unable to produce enough highly qualified/highly skilled Approach Radar controllers to service our requirements for managing burgeoning IFR traffic numbers within CAS leave alone provide additional Approach Radar controllers to service the requirements of using this new, cheaper technology to provide a service outside or transiting CAS.

Perhaps now is the time to evaluate exactly what, given a specific level of training, a FISO could do with a 'radar' display?

We mustn't however, be lulled in to a false idea that all this technology is of good quality and cheap. I sat in a FISO manned tower the other week looking at one of these PC based displays which seemed rather problematic to set up and was almost impossible to read given the ambient lighting. The data displayed on it was reliant on Mode S AND ADS-B data being transmitted from an individual aircraft and the mapping, given the screen resolution and the pallets used, virtually useless.

The regulation and control of the equipment quality and integrity of data will have to be just as carefully specified and managed as the role of the FISO but none of these issues should prevent us for opening the debate as to how we should be allowing our FISO, both area and aerodrome, to use the technology. Any forward thinking and progressive service provider would already be evaluating how ALL grades of staff might be used to enhance the service they provide using whatever technology is available.;)

skydriller

9th Sep 2006, 07:32

It is forecast to be a great flying weekend - Any guesses how many infringements this weekend:sad:

And..... I wonder how many will be refused a Transit of controlled airspace this weekend?:E :E

Regards, SD..

I know, I know, I'm being unfair and I'm sure all controllers on here will do their utmost to help us, but I still cant help thinking it considering my limited experience in the UK this summer.....

flower

9th Sep 2006, 07:37

TC_LTN,

the regulator won't even allow radar qualified ATCOs to use an ATM for radar purposes how likely is it that they will allow non radar qualified staff to provide radar services ?
As you say a review would be good but the point that I was trying to get across is that they cannot currently use them however valid you think it may be for them to do so.
I have also seen the kit that you can purchase from Transair and it is very good but currently only for use for transponder equipped aircraft.

SWANFIS where are you think you would be very useful here to explain your work

zkdli

9th Sep 2006, 07:38

The problem isn't with the ones that ask for a clearance, it seems to be the ones who don't realise that they need a clearance:ok:
(Lost or don't think they are lost but really are:O )

Fuji Abound

9th Sep 2006, 07:40

I0540

Hope you had a good trip.

Whilst I know it is a commonly held view I have never entirely agreed with not using LI. Its value is in giving some idea of the traffic around. How often routing to Seaford for example does one hear others passing information on their inbound to the beacon. I can think of more than a few occasions when another inbound is arriving at the beacon at our around the same time and level. Good reason for ensuring a conflict is less likely to occur. A listening watch also provides this information but pilots who do not participate in the service are not in turn providing any position information for themselves.

Fine the big sky theory probably provides all the protection needed, as does a good look out in VMC and being at the correct level (if everyone else is), but maybe "every little bit helps" as well.

I do agree with your comments about radar. I find it common here as elsewhere for people in this country to say "we cant do that, it will never happen, that’s not the way the system works, it is someone elses responsibility". Change comes because people at all levels (often saying to the bosses) say, we can do that, there is a need, there is a good argument for doing so, we can find the extra funding. I suspect radar for London info might be a step to far though.

I also agree with F3G - as he says if you reread this thread the fact of the matter is that some of the ATCOs have come across as taking a harsh attitude. I understand it may well come from the perceived poor standard of many PPLs. However, the thread is about how zone infringements might be reduced. In my opinion there have been some helpful suggestions.

I put forward the view that I would find it helpful if told to remain outside CAS, I will come back, to instead be told how much of a delay I could expect in transit. I don’t agree adding to the message, expect transit in x minutes, adds significantly to the frequency time (all five words). So whilst hopefully GA takes on board some of the criticism leveled by ATCOs equally it would be refreshing to hear just once - yes, we can do that!

Final 3 Greens

9th Sep 2006, 08:38

Rustle

It isn't really a shortfall as it was never there in the first place, but you get the idea

I think that you might find the following passage interesting and I cite the source below for completeness:

http://www.bized.ac.uk/current/leisure/2003_4/010304.htm

The lack of VAT on fuel is clearly a subsidy and therefore does create a shortfall in income, because the government chooses to support the airline sector.

I am not criticising that decision at all, but to say that there is not really a shortfall is far from correct.

Starts

Estimates of the total subsidy to the UK aviation industry are in the region of £6 billion per year. This comprises the following subsidies (or negative taxation):

1. Aviation fuel is exempt from tax
* If a fuel tax was applied, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) estimates that there would be only a small impact on demand (100% tax leads to a 10% fall in demand).
* 75% of flights are for leisure purposes. Compared to car use, which is essential to many people and is taxed heavily, leisure travel is a 'discretionary' activity.
2. Air fares are VAT exempt
* 17.5% VAT applied would generate £2.5 billion per year and cut demand by 22% to 268 million flights.
3. Duty Free for flights outside the EU
* Removing this subsidy would yield approximately £400 million per year and cut demand by 1% to 266 million flights.
4. Cap on Landing Charges
* The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) sets a cap on airport landing charges. Airports can charge below this level, but are prevented from going above the price cap. This allows airports to charge lower costs to airlines than they would charge otherwise.

It is, of course, highly unlikely that all of these subsidies would be reduced at a stroke. One can only imagine the bitter campaigns that would be launched by the whole aviation industry, let alone the budget operators and middle class second-home-on-the-continent owners in the UK.

But the UK Government could tax this industry and get away with it on grounds of fairness and the environment. As the Government is looking for ways to close the gap between what it spends and what it earns, the budget airlines must be concerned. Changes to the lightly taxed current approach might be expected to have the greatest impact on the low cost carriers' business models.

Ends

rustle

9th Sep 2006, 08:51

Final 3 Greens

9th Sep 2006, 09:08

Rustle

I see where you are coming from and it is a commercial view, but in my experience of government finance all potential revenues and tax decisions are "costed" and treated as being real, before the final taxation decisions are made.

To do otherwise would open a government up to potential action for illegal subsidies.

Have a good weekend.

Warped Factor

9th Sep 2006, 09:17

The FIR FISOs having access to a radar monitor/display...

A lot is being looked at on the subject of infringements at the moment including things that at one time would have generated an automatic "we can't possibly do that because" response.

WF.

SwanFIS

9th Sep 2006, 10:21

Just returned from hols to find some interesting comments from flower, TC LTN among others.

Area FIS in the UK is often critisised for not doing what it is supposed to do. It does exactly what it is mandated to do, and does it, in my very biased view, very well....:hmm: ....99% of the time.

If you look at the outside of the box it came in you will see that it is there to provide information to assist pilots to go about the business of flying. At Swanwick we now have a very good range of systems and displays and can answer most questions in a matter if seconds. CAS joins and crosses are obtained quickly, any delay is normally down to the traffic levels of the agency we are obtaining the clearance from. We also give limited traffic information on "known traffic". I would rather not open that can of worms in this debate. We are not providing any of the established radar services such as US Flight Following, RIS, RAS, LARS or any other acronym you can think of. We are a procedural, not a radar, outfit.

Reducing the number of CAS infringements is now a high priority for all UK ATC agencies, and London FIS is playing its part. The much maligned "Fly On Track" report stated that around 70% of a/c that infringed CAS were receiving a FIS at the time. Not all were on our freqs I hasten to add! In November we will be introducing a Unit Specific SSR code, 7401, to be selected, when instructed, by all a/c receiving a FIS from us. This SSR code will allow any controller to contact us quickly if one of our a/c is causing him, or her, concern and hopefully stop some incidents before they occur.

People within NATS, from the coal face right up to board level, are now throwing away all the old prejudices and looking for radical ways to sort out the problems that we face. Problems that are mainly concentrated in the south east around the LTMA. Controllers you can calm down :ok: ...London FIS will not get radar to provide the services I mentioned earlier. There are, however, other "displays" available now that could assist us in reducing infringements (and by doing so, protect your traffic). The Dutch, Germans and French use processed radar data to assist their FIS provision. I recently visited Langen ACC, Germany to see exactly how they provide their FIS and came back with some useful ideas on possible ways forward. We are getting very strong support from "upon high" within NATS and I have great hopes for some developments in the not to distant future.

flower

9th Sep 2006, 10:40

It would help SWANFIS if they provided more frequencies and more staff for those busy summer weekends, I don't know how you do your job on those days let alone draw breath.

The big problem though isn't NATS is it, we come up with great ideas all the time it is convincing SRG.

Gertrude the Wombat

9th Sep 2006, 10:53

London FIS will not get radar to provide the services I mentioned earlier. There are, however, other "displays" available now ... processed radar data
For those of us who don't know this stuff could we have an explanation please?

It seems to me that every aircraft with a transponder in the south-east of England is being regularly poked by some radar or other, and it must be straightforward to distribute the resulting data ("there is a squawk nnnn at such-and-such a location") round a network to any customer who wants to know, such as an ATC unit with no actual radar antenna of their own. (Or even to the internet in general, so that the folks at home can follow your flight for example.)

SwanFIS

9th Sep 2006, 11:10

flower, our FIS Squawk obviously had to be cleared through SRG, DAP and the CAP413 people and I can honestly say the once our proposed method of operation was explained to them we could not have asked for more support and encouragement.

More frequencies, or better sectorisation so that our present three are better utilised would be nice (Its on the wish list). More staff, well wouldn't we all. There is a very faint possibility that when IFACTS comes in it might release more staff, but there are a lot of union / management negotiations before that happens. We are drawing up our plans based on present staffing figures.

flower, nice to see you "back"..hope its feeling better!

Gertrude, I am not going to go any further into our proposals on a public forum. They are in their very early stages, I posted here mainly to allay any fears my controller buddies had about us developing a Radar FIS.

Gertrude the Wombat

9th Sep 2006, 11:26

Gertrude, I am not going to go any further into our proposals on a public forum. They are in their very early stages, I posted here mainly to allay any fears my controller buddies had about us developing a Radar FIS.
Sorry, should have been clearer - I wasn't asking for any details of any confidential plans, I was just after trying to learn more about available systems and technologies.

flower

9th Sep 2006, 13:35

flower, nice to see you "back"..hope its feeling better!

Gertrude, I am not going to go any further into our proposals on a public forum. They are in their very early stages, I posted here mainly to allay any fears my controller buddies had about us developing a Radar FIS.

Back at work but not allowed to talk to aircraft ( no Class 1) so tied up in all the mysteries of Hazard analysis, UIs paperwork and all that stuff I wanted to avoid by being an ATCO !!!

As for the allaying of fears SWANFIS no fears from me I'm up for anything that improves the service I just know how difficult in the past it has been to get approval for new ideas, if we truly are getting the support both you and Warped Factor say then that has to be extremely positive, it's about time those who make decisions listened to those at the coalface .

WorkingHard

9th Sep 2006, 13:44

Please please treat these as serious questions. Do we have TOO MUCH CAS in the UK and could it be changed in shape and size? Should airports pay a "rent" on the airspace allocated, rent determined by volume?

flower

9th Sep 2006, 13:45

WorkingHard

9th Sep 2006, 15:33

Flower it should not be a them and us debate. I have always assumed that despite some GA pilots not liking somethings you ATCOs say or do you only worked within the rules laid down for you. So why should there be more polarisation if you express your views on CAS size etc. Unless it is slanted for/against GA. It really was a serious question on my part.

SwanFIS

9th Sep 2006, 16:08

As someone who sometimes has to describe, over the r/t, the shape of a piece of CAS affecting a pilot (who has temporarily mislaid his half mil map in the cockpit :hmm: ) I hate it!

It is acknowledged that CAS complexity is a causal factor in some CAS infringements. Is there the will, and are there resources available to redesign it.....I doubt it, but it certainly is being discussed at various levels. I am, however, not holding my breath.

WorkingHard

9th Sep 2006, 16:21

Thank you SwanFIS, you have just shown that polarisation is not necessary. Do you think the shape etc will ever change for a more simple arrangement. just asking your personal view.

SwanFIS

9th Sep 2006, 16:41

I very much doubt if established CAS shape and size will be changed wholesale, but the reclassification of some of it (Class E perhaps?) would make it more GA friendly and that is a possibility. I would hope also that the complex CAS we have seen introduced at East Midlands and Coventry recently is not repeated. However minds much more financially pampered than mine will make those decisions:rolleyes:
Oh, and I think flower was warning of what others would say rather referring to her stand concerning this issue.:ok:

Fuji Abound

9th Sep 2006, 16:51

SF

A second from me - I also agree that you have demonstrated there is no need for views to be polarised. :D

WH

I would be against any form of "renting" airspace. The problem with rents is they create a "contractual" arrangement between the parties. Doubtless those paying would see themselves as having even greater rights to the airspace over those that dont.

SF

You have commented that the Germans have some good ideas. In the US overhead transits are common and "assumed". Of course the usual response is they have far less traffic. Again, simply in terms of your own personal opinions, is traffic volume really the big issue claimed or are their other factors at work? As one example I pass Gatwick very regularly. Outside the morning an evening rush hours, the controllers are surprisingly quite.

SwanFIS

9th Sep 2006, 17:09

...........is traffic volume really the big issue claimed or are their other factors at work?.....
Yes traffic volume, r/t loading, coordination time, weather, traffic complexity, equipment unservicability, safety etc. I have never found a "hidden agenda" when I have requested a clearance from a unit or seen it when working alongside controllers. There may be units that have a policy regarding transits, if there are I have no knowledge of them

flower

9th Sep 2006, 17:24

Working Hard,
just do a quick search and you will see the debate on CAS is a regular. Views do tend to be polarised and entrenched.

If you have kept a close look on the new CAS surrounding Bristol and Cardiff no doubt you will think why on earth have they got such a complex looking bit of airspace and yes it does look complex. Well to keep DAP happy and the policy ,which I believe to be utterly correct, of one where you only have the CAS you require we have the most ridiculously shaped CTR going. In reality once you know the airspace then you will see that there is ample room for GA to pass beneath the CTA without ever having to speak to ATC but it has drawn complaints because it isn't a simple shape.
CAS is hard to obtain, again a policy I have no problem with it should always be examined in depth, thus when I hear arguments about CAS I wish the people involved could have seen just how much work over the last 3 years has gone into actually obtaining it and how we have had to ensure that all airspace users are considered. You will see time and time again repeated on this forum that the CAS is too big, well I would say in the majority of cases it isn't as it does have to be properly designed and approved by DAP and trust me that really is hard work. As for renting out, well I think GA would end up the very poor relation in such an arrangement as the Airport companies would demand even more than they do now that their aircraft got priority.

I still think this is another debate for another topic but it has been done to death many times and i doubt many will change their views.

Fuji Abound

9th Sep 2006, 17:44

I do loads of transit a year.

I commented previously they are very very rarely a problem. The ATCOs are brilliant and the service excellent. In fact in recent years it has improved considerably. Thank goodness I have only once been involved in a minor infringement many years ago as a very new PPL - no excuses, it was my fault. Again the ATCO picked up on the infringement very quickly (I was already working him, and he politely pointed out my mistake!).

Personally, I have no problem with the shape of CAS. I feel with proper training navigating around or through CAS should not present anyone with a problem.

Generally thanks to all that provide the CAS service they do.

However, (and there is always a however I guess), for some reason I have had more than a few problems with Stansted over the years. I dont know why, and maybe I have just been unlucky. However, (and also from experience listening out) transits seem to be regularly refused, often curtly and it is difficult to get them to indicate whether after an orbit or two the transit will be approved. In fact personally I usually route around now because I cant be bothered with the hassle - which is a shame for me at any rate.

Is there a particular reason for this or have I just been unlucky?

Warped Factor

9th Sep 2006, 18:12

Generally thanks to all that provide the CAS service they do.
However, (and there is always a however I guess), for some reason I have had more than a few problems with Stansted over the years. I dont know why, and maybe I have just been unlucky. However, (and also from experience listening out) transits seem to be regularly refused, often curtly and it is difficult to get them to indicate whether after an orbit or two the transit will be approved. In fact personally I usually route around now because I cant be bothered with the hassle - which is a shame for me at any rate.
Is there a particular reason for this or have I just been unlucky?

Stansted is an interesting one.

You'll quite often hear folk saying things like how great Luton or maybe Gatwick are but Stansted not so.

The folk saying it probably don't appreciate that the great majority of the atcos that work Gatwick, Stansted and Luton are all multi-valid and will do at least two, and some of them all three, of these approach sectors (they're all in the same room for anyone who didn't know).

Why would the same atco apparently be helpful when doing Luton but not when doing Essex or is it just a case of years old mud that is still sticking?

WF.

IO540

9th Sep 2006, 21:44

Technically, one could easily distribute radar data so that everybody who could benefit could have a screen.

Once collected, the stuff is easy to distribute because the data is vector (not raster) and so there is very little data per second to be transmitted. One could run a perfectly good display over a 9.6k modem. I know, because I used to work with a bloke who used to do this, in some military radar context.

These anally retentive rules about qualifications to use radar are just the standard job creation / protection on which the whole aviation regulation edifice is built. I have not yet heard a single thing which isn't a perfect circular argument.

Every airfield operator could have a radar feed, too.

However I am not sure about making the data feed completely public because of obvious security issues. One would distribute it over HTTPS, and run a java or flash application to display the data.

It's like the weather radar situation. Currently, ATC don't get weather. Their only clue as to where "charlie bravos" are hanging out comes from one airliner after another asking for a "30 left" or whatever. This is another anally retentive business. The data is there, it's produced, collected, and you can have it. You just have to pay.

Warped Factor

9th Sep 2006, 21:58

These anally retentive rules about qualifications to use radar are just the standard job creation / protection on which the whole aviation regulation edifice is built. I have not yet heard a single thing which isn't a perfect circular argument.

Quite agree, I want the day off on Tuesday so feel like coming in to cover a bit of LHR approach for me? I'm sure you'll get the hang of it without too many incidents...

:rolleyes:

Sometimes some rules and qualifications are justified you know.

WF.

IO540

10th Sep 2006, 07:10

WF

I am going to give up banging my head against a brick wall here. You have taken what I said and completely twisted it around.

For those who can't read, I was talking about an FIS officer seeing the traffic he is talking to on radar. Not about him doing the job of a Heathrow controller.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

flower

10th Sep 2006, 07:32

IO540,

If you are talking about everyone having a radar feed to observe in the same way as an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor then yes people could have them. All they can do is watch though and do little else with it apart from a few exceptions unless they have approval from SRG. It costs a lot of money to have such a feed and I doubt many air/ground facilities could justify the cost on the basis they cannot actually use it for anything more than observation.
The London FIR FISOs screen would have to be enormous or have several but they do have access to radar screens, again though it is an observational tool rather than something you can use in anger.
Believe it or not the Radar Validation is a tough one to pass and is where most ATCOs fall down if they are going to fail.
Most air-ground fields etc would be better off going out and purchasing that fab bit of kit if they really want to see where traffic is but the one I saw in action uses transponders to pick up aircraft so again not of major benefit to small places where many aircraft may be non squawking.
To see the "radar" picture in the situations of a non controlling environment in the vast majority of cases would simply be a nicety but of no real benefit and the cost I am sure not justifiable.

As for weather radar, well we can see weather on the radar screens but we purposely suppress it, more likely to see it on approach radar than area radar due to the wavelength of the radar. However I do know investigations are being made and costed regards weather tools for us but when you are talking such a large company as NATS it is a huge cost so things don't happen overnight.

Single Spey

10th Sep 2006, 07:46

IO540,

If you are talking about everyone having a radar feed to observe in the same way as an Aerodrome Traffic Monitor then yes people could have them. All they can do is watch though and do little else with it apart from a few exceptions unless they have approval from SRG.
...
Believe it or not the Radar Validation is a tough one to pass and is where most ATCOs fall down if they are going to fail.
...
To see the "radar" picture in the situations of a non controlling environment in the vast majority of cases would simply be a nicety but of no real benefit and the cost I am sure not justifiable.

This is exactly the point. It would be relatively easy to provide a radar display/displays to a London FIS cell, and train FISOs to be able to identify traffic on the display on the basis of a DF bearing/transponder reply/ident. There is no requirement to provide any skill for separation provision, or any control services. Where the benefit could come is if the radar data was tracked by the system and could alert FISOs to aircraft on specific squawk codes (ie FIS) that were about to infringe CAS - no different in principle to the STCA and probably a lot easier as one of the targets (the CAS) is fixed. This can be done now. In fact you could argue that it is in NATS interests to provide such a facility in the SE because of the opertaing penalty when airspace is infringed. Unless of course the problem is not actually that serious to warrant a solution?

flower

10th Sep 2006, 08:29

In November we will be introducing a Unit Specific SSR code, 7401, to be selected, when instructed, by all a/c receiving a FIS from us. This SSR code will allow any controller to contact us quickly if one of our a/c is causing him, or her, concern and hopefully stop some incidents before they occur.
.

Single Spey, that should assist radar units so covers what you are suggesting

SwanFIS

10th Sep 2006, 08:30

Where the benefit could come is if the radar data was tracked by the system and could alert FISOs to aircraft on specific squawk codes (ie FIS) that were about to infringe CAS....................... Unless of course the problem is not actually that serious to warrant a solution?..........

Oh yes there is a problem alright.

As flower correctly says - "Believe it or not the Radar Validation is a tough one to pass and is where most ATCOs fall down if they are going to fail........... To see the "radar" picture in the situations of a non controlling environment in the vast majority of cases would simply be a nicety but of no real benefit and the cost I am sure not justifiable".

Developments in technology, and thinking (both positive and lateral) do open up possibilities of finding a way forward. Lets see how our plans develop.

Some good observations, thank you.

rustle

10th Sep 2006, 08:38

Single Spey, that should assist radar units so covers what you are suggesting

That will only help in the case of CAS touching the ground, or compulsory Mode C or S. The benefit will come from a 7401 seen (with "C") near CAS enabling the CAS controller to know the 7401 is with London FIS.

How does a 7401 with no "C" near CAS (which doesn't touch the ground) help any more than 7000 with no "C"? Say under the Stansted stub for example? Does STCA assist without "C"?

flower

10th Sep 2006, 08:38

Developments in technology, and thinking (both positive and lateral) do open up possibilities of finding a way forward. Lets see how our plans develop.
Some good observations, thank you.

If only cost didn't have to be factored into everything :oh:

SwanFIS

10th Sep 2006, 08:45

Rustle, as I undestand it a 7000 without mode C transiting below CAS is "assumed" to be outside CAS. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that point:ok:

The 7401 squawk will give the controller the option to call us if they wish so that we can confirm the altitude with the pilot.

englishal

10th Sep 2006, 08:53

"don't call me if you're outside CAS"........

Now instead of working the RT, the controller has to telephone London Info to verify the pilots intentions (more time consuming?), yet if he was already talking to him, he'd already know what his / her intentions were.

I think pilots operating near CAS should be encouraged to call the ATC unit responsible. However, as is pretty clear from many of the comments here (not all mind) that they are not interested as they are too busy.

rustle

10th Sep 2006, 08:53

Rustle, as I undestand it a 7000 without mode C transiting below CAS is "assumed" to be outside CAS. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that point:ok:

Yep, that's my understanding of it as well. ;)

The 7401 squawk will give the controller the option to call us if they wish so that we can confirm the altitude with the pilot.

If zone transits aren't happening around Stansted because of workload, the last thing they're going to have time for is checking with London FIS every time a 7401 with no "C" gets close...

I just wonder how much use that will be before 2008.

Once everyone has alt displayed, you'll know:
a. Altitude
b. They're speaking to London FIS

and can do something useful with that information.

Until (a) is achieved there will still have to be an assumption that if it isn't squawking alt it is "underneath" CAS.

SwanFIS

10th Sep 2006, 09:16

Mixed Up

10th Sep 2006, 09:23

Yesterday an approach ATCO at a regional airport became a little anxious that there were four aircraft over a neaby city. He passed a few "traffic informations" and made a general broadcast warning aircraft in that area. Then an arriving airliner came of frequency and commenced with "if I can a word in edgeways here ...".

Now the chances of four light aircraft operating VFR on a CAVOK day (even at the same hight) in the general area of a city actually bumping into each other must be a bit remote. But I'd guess that to the ATCO, his display looked alarming.

Just imagine London Info FISO's having a radar display! It woud be bright yellow!:O

flower

10th Sep 2006, 09:26

We wouldn't be on the phone every 5 minutes to London Info should we see a 7401 squawk, it does however give us the capability of speaking to the aircraft should the need arise or to London Info to help prevent an infringement or has been known pass traffic info which we believe to be in direct conflict ( yes has been done in the past). If no Mode C unless we have information to the contrary we take it the aircraft is below CAS.
I can't speak about units who do not wish to speak to aircraft outside CAS but I think you will find they are non LARS thus it isn't in their remit to provide services outside CAS, but speak to us LARS units and unless exceptional circumstances occur you will get a service.

rustle

10th Sep 2006, 11:38

Rustle, as I envisage it approach operations will continue as they are but if an a/c in a CTA reports a contact, be it TCAS or visual, and the controller can tie that to a non mode C 7401 they can contact us. Once identified that a/c becomes "known traffic" and (as I understand it) they are then not obligated to take 5,000ft and/or 5nm. As a result of this the impact on that airports operations will be greatly reduced.

:ok: All understood (although TCAS isn't going to give anyone any more info than the controller's screen) but if a pilot does see someone who looks like they might be in the zone rather than under it I can see an advantage.

I hope they can tell the difference between 2000' and 1499' from above, although if someone's at the same alt it is more obvious ;)

Come mandatory Mode S (with C) this will be a Godsend for getting in touch with those inside CAS but talking to London FIS. :ugh:

Is this a case of joined-up thinking but no-one's saying it aloud yet?

long final

10th Sep 2006, 12:43

I want to comment about the issue of instruction, and a perceived reduction in quality. I used to instruct full time, and still instruct occasionally. I wont pretend I was the best instructor around but continually felt under pressure to get students ready in the shortest time possible. Ground school time, pre flight briefs and post flight briefs were very limited or non-existent. The schedule of most schools these days is so tight that you cannot give anything like the time required on the ground with the students.

I have never worked with instructors who did not feel the same. I have never worked with instructors who didn’t care about the student’s progress and safety. All the instructors I have worked with wanted to spend much more time with the students teaching the theory/planning etc. necessary for flight, even though they never get paid for that time. Maybe I have just been lucky to work with a group of people like this, most of whom were aiming for commercial jobs further on in aviation.

I understand that the schools are struggling to compete, and in doing so have to structure the available time and aircraft in the way many of them do. I do not agree that it is in any way beneficial for the student though. I also feel it is easier to pass your skill test than a car/bike test. I saw a massive amount of leniency from examiners at times and a lack of consistency between examiners. There are lots of cosy relationships out there that we all know about. I used to believe that situation wasn’t too bad, as like a car license I believed you went on the improve your flying after passing. After flying numerous bi-annual PPL flights since then I am not at all sure that happens with many private pilots.

Anyhow, my point is that its easy to blame the instructors, but I feel the schools do not provide them with the time needed to produce good pilots. We spit them out at the end with the basics to keep themselves alive, with a lack of knowledge specifically in their theory base and a lack of confidence in their own ability.

Warped Factor

10th Sep 2006, 18:48

This is exactly the point. It would be relatively easy to provide a radar display/displays to a London FIS cell, and train FISOs to be able to identify traffic on the display on the basis of a DF bearing/transponder reply/ident. There is no requirement to provide any skill for separation provision, or any control services. Where the benefit could come is if the radar data was tracked by the system and could alert FISOs to aircraft on specific squawk codes (ie FIS) that were about to infringe CAS - no different in principle to the STCA and probably a lot easier as one of the targets (the CAS) is fixed. This can be done now. In fact you could argue that it is in NATS interests to provide such a facility in the SE because of the opertaing penalty when airspace is infringed. Unless of course the problem is not actually that serious to warrant a solution?

Electronic alerting of CAS infringements is coming, should be up and running in TC next year some time.

Unless you're not transponding though in which case the system can't track you so it won't work...roll on mandatory transponders!

WF.

zkdli

11th Sep 2006, 20:14

According to the people in the know there were 8 infringements of the LTMA this week making the total 208 and counting. This included a few who appeared to know where they were so couldn't really be classed as lost!
(SSR disappeared)

AlanM

11th Sep 2006, 21:14

Actually there may have been 8 filed/logged infringements but I saw 2 today and 3 on the weekend... all untraceable (landing in fields etc) - Varying efforts of 2.9A in the LTMA nr Elstree to flying through Stansted CTR to Brentwood to land North of West Malling.

(And before anyone blames me for that, the aircraft had not called North Weald who phoned and ask us to trace the helicopter after it went through there overhead at low level and not called Southend..... who's area of LARS coverage was flown through as well)

DFC

11th Sep 2006, 21:43

Perhaps the next time as a controlled flight I am vectored outside controlled airspace I should file an infringement report. i.e. The controller infringed class G airspace!

The whole FIR code idea seems to me to be a complete waste of time!

The FIR issue a code to a pilot that calls. Who verifies the code and who validates the mode C? Without both, the use as any form of tracking or indication is way outside the rules.

So with no validated mode C and no verified code, a busy approach radar ATCO telephones the busy FIR sector and asks about an aircraft on an FIR code that is cutting the corner of their CTA.

Chances are that the aircraft is not infringing but has mode C that is out by several hundred feet, the R/T switched off and the FIR code was set some time ago before the pilot left the frequency. They did try to tell the FIR but the frequency was so busy, they simply gave up.

Meanwhile, two busy ATS personnel are distracted from their primary tasks searching for an aircraft that they think they have but actually do not!

Everyone looses out and some idiot thinks that is a good idea?

How many infringfements of airspace occur above 3000ft AMSL?

Regards,

DFC

AlanM

12th Sep 2006, 05:24

How many infringfements of airspace occur above 3000ft AMSL?
Regards,
DFC

You would be amazed.... including someone in a JP general handling at FL100 20 east of LAM recently.

Priceless

SwanFIS

12th Sep 2006, 06:36

Everyone looses out and some idiot thinks that is a good idea?
Yes I do, and so do the vast majority of FISOs and controllers who will be using it. It will assist controllers, in some situations. It is not a magical cure that will stop infringements but it does give controller the ability to contact us to check the altitude and intentions of one of our a/c if it is giving him / her cause for concern.

A 7000 showing 2.9A in the TMA...controller can do very little.

A 7401 showing 2.9A in the TMA... controller can call us to check the level and intentions, putting it on a discreet code if positive ident is required.

London Mil

12th Sep 2006, 07:08

Of course, if the controller actually had the ability/capcity or tools available to give an effective ATS to VFR bimblers, much of the problem will go away. Is it time for the regulator to insist that CAS is managed in the most efficient manner? This costs money and requires more controllers (I'm led to believe there is a big bucket of spare ones hidden in the cupboard :ouch:) and of course GA would pay. Personally, I prefer making sure my up-to-date map correlates with my GPS and that which I can see out of the window.

IO540

12th Sep 2006, 09:27

There will never be a case for providing any sort of "assured" service OCAS. Nobody is going to pay for it, and few people apart from PPL students on their QXC flights would make much use of it.

The only way to begin to deal with this is better navigation methods.

englishal

12th Sep 2006, 10:23

The only way to begin to deal with this is better navigation methods.
And possibly simpler airspace and / or airspace depiction on the chart.

I was planning a trip "near london" a while back. I planned my route well as I'd never been up that way, checked it again and tripple checked it. It was only then that I realised that I had totally missed a section of Class A and had I flown my route at intended altitude I'd have gone slap bang into it. I didn't though......

I don't know why, but I find the CAA 1:500000 chart very difficult to read at times. I am used to airspace and can fly happily around LAX and other busy areas VFR. I suppose it helps that you can buy terminal charts which also depict the airspace on the back without the ground clutter, something which would be useful in the region of the LTMA......

rustle

12th Sep 2006, 10:37

And possibly simpler airspace and / or airspace depiction on the chart.

The problem with "simpler airspace" is that it is invariably bigger than less simple airspace, and that creates more complaints.

Farnborough's TRA was a good example, where they only TRA'd the absolute minimum they needed but it was a pig to visualise with all the co-ordinates in the NOTAM. Had they made it simple (circle, radius 10nm, centred on Farnborough) people would have complained they were taking too much space...

slim_slag

12th Sep 2006, 11:11

where they only TRA'd the absolute minimum they needed but it was a pig to visualise with all the co-ordinates in the NOTAMHere is a top tip for you rustle. When flying VFR, visualise airspace by using a chart, not lat/long coordinates.

Send my fee to a charity of your choice :)

rustle

12th Sep 2006, 11:27

Here is a top tip for you rustle. When flying VFR, visualise airspace by using a chart, not lat/long coordinates.

Send my fee to a charity of your choice :)

Here's a top tip for you, SS. Read the post, think about the difference between a TRA and airspace that might appear on a chart (think about what the "T" in TRA might mean if it helps) then post. := :)

Send my fee to the Sir Isaac Newton friction testing fund. ;)

Unless, of course, you meant draw it on the chart? Which is what I did. :)

slim_slag

12th Sep 2006, 11:58

Oh my, top tips flying left right and centre. No need to bother with the published lat/longs to draw it on your chart, just use the chart provided by the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/14/M2005_43a.pdf) and copy those lines. Less chance for error and even a dumbkopf like me can draw lines between corners.

So, when you are asked to divert on some skills test, do you use the lat/long of your current position and the lat/long of the destination airfield to calculate distance, or do you just do like I do and use a thumb?

rustle

12th Sep 2006, 12:18

So, when you are asked to divert on some skills test, do you use the lat/long of your current position and the lat/long of the destination airfield to calculate distance, or do you just do like I do and use a thumb?

On my NAV equipment I have a little button with a symbol like a "D" with an arrow through it. Press that. Follow line. Avoid airspace. Job done. :) Top tip: You may use your thumb to press this button if you like ;)

My point about the TRA was that if, say, you were briefing at your local flying club (who notoriously don't have printers and/or paper) you might diligently check NOTAMs and find that TRA and think "you're having a f'ken laugh, look at the shape of that" and not be able to print your super pdf file.

Whereas if it was a circle, radius 10nm, centred on EGLF you might think "you're having a f'ken laugh, look at the size of that", but visualise it far more easily. :p

DFC

12th Sep 2006, 13:10

So, when you are asked to divert on some skills test, do you use the lat/long of your current position and the lat/long of the destination airfield to calculate distance, or do you just do like I do and use a thumb?

If I asked someone to divert to a small town, I would expect that on giving them the lat/long, they would be easily able to locate the position on their chart and thus avoid any confusion. They would then having exactly located the position use their thumb to measure the distance.

When doing a helicopter charter or aerial photography, one of the most important things to get is the Grid reference or Lat/Long of the landing site or target. Many times, heli companies have quoted for a champers trip to Little Snotty Nose Village Estate expecting a 50nm each way only to find enroute that it is not the Little Snotty Nose there but the other one which is 150nm away!!!

Regards,

DFC

Fuji Abound

12th Sep 2006, 14:59

"If I asked someone to divert to a small town, I would expect that on giving them the lat/long, they would be easily able to locate the position on their chart and thus avoid any confusion. They would then having exactly located the position use their thumb to measure the distance."

Oh my, I remember the Star Trek in which Bones says something like "drilling through the brain you daft butchers, you are still in the dark ages, funderscope examination is what is required in these cases."

I am not saying you are wrong just the thought of lat long co-ordinates being handed out by the instructor and thumbs to the ready made me smile :) .

Warped Factor

12th Sep 2006, 15:13

The FIR issue a code to a pilot that calls. Who verifies the code and who validates the mode C? Without both, the use as any form of tracking or indication is way outside the rules.

Care to explain why? It's a conspicuity code indicating an a/c may be talking to a particular unit, that's all, no different to the many other allocated conspicuity codes or are all of them outside of your rules as well.

If you don't mind me asking how do you manage to find the time to post here amongst your apparent scheduled commercial flying, helicopter flying, ad-hoc charter/aerial photography type work, instructing and in depth theoretical study of the ATC system (more work required on that last one though)? Mustn't leave you much free time.

A tiring WF.

DFC

12th Sep 2006, 21:09

Warped Factor,

I can see why certain procedural or radar ATC units use a specified code to indicate that a certain flight is working them.

But they are ATC units. They can tell pilots what to do. The pilot must also tell them if they can not and they must inform the unit before changing frequency. They also operate within a fairly limited area of responsibility.

The FIR on the other hand operates throughout the FIR, has no ability to instruct a pilot to do anything and pilots can comeand go from the frequency without being required to tell the controller.

There is already the 7000 conspicuity code.

What I see happening with the second conspicuity code being introduced is;

Pilots will start using the code while awaiting to talk to the FISO, they will not re-select 7000 after going out of communication unless reminded by the FISO, they will at times forget to use 7000 even when not talking to anyone on a flight, they will enter France etc with a specific code selected and not the 7000 or appropriate ORCAM that is required.

Controllers watching an infringement will ring the FIR who is busy hold with the ATSA, spend time talking to the FISO while FIR traffic and ATC traffic wait all to in many cases find out that the conspicuity code is of no help.

In summary, give every ATC unit that do not already have a code allocation a conspicuity code for traffic but leave the FIR with 7000 and then combined with the current trial of a specific code for traffic remaining within the circuit pattern at aerodromes you have just as much (perhaps better) chance of the 7000 code passing through your zone being in contact with the FIR!

Better still, make the airspace below the LTMA a mandatory radio area and require flights within 5nm of CAS to Monitor the appropriate frequency.

----------

I never have flown helicopters. But the story about the mistaken landing site is well known. Aerial photography many years ago but not for decades. Everyone uses Google Earth now anyway! :) ATC when there was no licence and SRA, PAR and QGHs were common at civil aerodromes.

Ah the tripple compass and gyro U/S QGH. Now that was ATC! ;)

You left out CAA Examminer. :D

Regards,

DFC

SwanFIS

13th Sep 2006, 07:31

..... It's a conspicuity code indicating an a/c may be talking to a particular unit, that's all, no different to the many other allocated conspicuity codes....

DFC, yes a few pilots will leave the squawk selected, some may select it inapropriately...no big deal in the big scheme of things (believe it or not), it happens now with unit specific SSR codes.

A minute or two of conversation between two busy ATS / ATC units is not unusual either (believe it or not), at this time of year it is the norm. That conversation could stop the controller getting a whole lot busier and stop arrivals and departures being curtailed while the rogue a/c clears CAS in its own good time.

WF is correct, this is nothing unusual and the fact that we are a non-radar unit makes this more useful. Pure and simple, it gives radar units who have concerns about one of our a/c the chance to have it on their freq or have instructions passed to it.

This is an initiative by us at "London Information" to assist our buddies in TC and the airports to identify straying a/c, and give them the ability to take action before a serious incident occurs.

AlanM

13th Sep 2006, 09:07

Swan FIS and his chums always answer the phone quickly when we call and give us as much help as possible when chasing CAS infringers.

:ok: :D

DFC

13th Sep 2006, 09:32

it happens now with unit specific SSR codes.

Yes but if a Manchester Radar controller sees an aircraft infringe the CTR while passing down the low level corridor and wearing say a Carlisle conspicuity code (if there is one) then the controller knows that there is no point in calling Carlisle.

As for answering the phone quickly. Yes but while you are chatting about an aircraft that you probably know nothing about, aircraft transmissions (which are the priority) are being ignored/ put on standby which means that joining requests, departure and arrival times, flight plans, FIR estimates, coasting out/in reports and other FIS requests have to wait........all because someone can not navigate or can not receive appropriate assistance from an ATC unit.

If sheep sometimes escape from your field, do you put a red dot on all of them and then count the number of sheep with red dots that escape or do you close the gap in the fence?

Regards,

DFC

flower

13th Sep 2006, 09:56

DFC,
your above post makes me wonder if you have ever visited an ATC unit or met an ATCO from any unit or a FISO from London Info.
Umm how many phone calls do we field all day long whilst continuing to control Air Traffic :hmm:

The Squawk will help , it is a positive step forward as are most initiatives thought up by operational staff who do the job daily

SwanFIS

13th Sep 2006, 10:20

DFC

13th Sep 2006, 11:32

DFC all the points that you have mentioned have been discussed by us at Swanwick, at meetings of the NATS Infringement Group and also around the table with representatives from SRG and DAP. We have all taken the view that this is a positive step forward, a view reflected, as you see, by the comments from valid operational controllers.
We like, you do not. Thats life I am afraid me old mate;)
SwanFIS out

No mention of any consultation wih the customer there.

As a customer, this procedure will not change the way I operate or who I talk to enroute when close to various pieces of airspace or how I teach students to operate.

Since I rarely use the FIS provided by the London ACC for other than getting the weather (or football scores), the chances of my ever setting this code is small.

Many other pilots will operate in the same way.

This is simply hiding from the actual issue and creating a nice idea for a glossy PR announcement that will (already has) cost money and acheive nothing.

Regards,

DFC

rustle

13th Sep 2006, 11:42

I think you forgot to say "IMHO", DFC ;)

Fuji Abound

13th Sep 2006, 11:56

"No mention of any consultation wih the customer there."

That seems like a reasonable question to me.

Has there been any consultation?

SwanFIS

13th Sep 2006, 12:17

Fuji pm sent

panjandrum

13th Sep 2006, 12:47

As a non-NATS LARS unit with primary only radar, we did not receive any consultation on this.
And yes, we do get occasional infringements by aircraft talking to London FIS.
The new conspicuity code will not change our ability (or not) to spot infringements before they happen.

SwanFIS

13th Sep 2006, 14:49

panjandrum pm sent

Warped Factor

13th Sep 2006, 16:36

ATC when there was no licence and SRA, PAR and QGHs were common at civil aerodromes.
Ah the tripple compass and gyro U/S QGH. Now that was ATC! ;)

Well that explains your lack of any practical rather than theoretical grasp of more modern ATC ;)

As a customer, this procedure will not change the way I operate or who I talk to enroute when close to various pieces of airspace or how I teach students to operate.

The intention of the trial is not that it should change the way that you or anyone else may or may not use the FIS and nor do I see any reason why it should either.

This is simply hiding from the actual issue and creating a nice idea for a glossy PR announcement that will (already has) cost money and acheive nothing.

Time will tell whether this particular idea will prove to be a successful one or not but unlike yourself at least we as a company are open minded and willing to give it and other suggestions a try.

WF.

flower

13th Sep 2006, 17:06

Many of the initiatives within NATS ( and I am pretty certain much of ATC ) come from the bottom up rather than the top down. Staff through working groups, technical committees even through the simple change request process are able to identify areas they believe can be improved by a change in procedure.
Any changes are put through a rigorous process prior to introduction, all will have gone though the NATS Hazard analysis process which identifies risks and any risks must be mitigated prior to implementation. Something such as the use of a conspicuity code in this instance to me has no commercial impact outside of NATS so I'm unsure why it would be necessary for a consultation outside of the company to take place.
It will be necessary for ALL units to be notified of the new conspicuity code and that will happen I'm sure.