Infringements of the Heathrow CTR

[ATCO17]

Well folks, yesterday there were an unbelievable FIVE infringements of the LHR CTR, one of which tracked from White Waltham, eastwards towards Heathrow, straight into their departures. At least two of the others (either intentionally or not) cut the northwest corner south of Beaconsfield.

Was there a huge solar flare that played havoc with compasses, or were these folks just lacking awareness? I know we are all human, but still find it difficult to understand how folks can get it so wrong at times.....how can we all prevent this kind of occurrence repeating itself week after week?

[bigfoot01]

Hand Held GPS form part of the PPL Course?

[Phoenix09]

One of those pilots was a student on a QXC from Thruxton to Sywell. His heading was supposed to be 027 degrees for 72 miles. Unfortunately he ended up flying 072 degrees which put him in the Heathrow Zone. I believe that he mistook the Madejski Stadium at Reading for the Oxford United ground and RAF Northolt for Kidlington.

It is very easy when under a little bit of pressure to convince yourself that you are where you should be rather than where you actually are. A few other issues compounded the problem but he did eventually get onto 121.5 when he realised his error.

[stickandrudderman]

Surely it's possible to identify the culprit from White Waltham isn't it?
Anybody taking off from there should no better, and deserves a severe kicking IMHO.
Mind you, I did hear a story about an elderly bloke on his last ever flight. He flew directly south from Denham! Could be just a Prumour though.
(I think I've just invented a euphamism for a pprune rumour!)

[Phoenix09]

Although the student was from White Waltham he was en route from Thruxton to Sywell. He had not just taken off from WW.

[Mariner9]

Bit harsh Stick, IMHO, yes he made a gross error, but reportedly got on to D&D as soon as he realised he was lost. Requires sympathy and further training rather than kicking IMHO.

As to the original posters question wondering what we can do about it,
I would say a far better safety case could be made for mandatory GPS with airspace warnings than a Mode S txp.

(Cue arguments about heads in cockpits missing visual nav clues, despite reported stude mis-identifying many on subject flight :ugh:)

[stickandrudderman]

I made my post before it was revealed that there was a student involved, so no, he doesn't deserve a kicking!
His instructor on the other hand.......;)
The way it read from the original post was that the flight originated from WW, and one imagines that any qualified pilot flying from there would know not to fly east!
I'm not an instructor, but I can't help thinking that WW, with it's proximity to LHR, is not a particularly good place to send a student on a XC excercise.
I wonder how this episode has affected the student's confidence.

[Mikehotel152]

I did a QXC not long ago, part of which was between Brentwood and Shoreham, and made damn sure I stayed to the east of Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells so that I was not in danger of infringing London Airspace or Gatwick's CTR even if off course.

When you're inexperienced you should take every precaution not to infringe CTRs. I am sorry, but even student pilots shouldn't be that far off course.

Having said that, I'm not perfect and people make mistakes, so I hope the poor chap/chapette is not too dispirited and treats it as part of the learning process. At least nothing bad happened!

:)

[IO540]

The infringers don't deserve a kicking :ugh:- after all, they didn't do it deliberately.

How about a really drastic suggestion for a change.... something that has rarely happened in the history of British aviation.... have a word with the instructor(s), perhaps??

Hopefully, the student involved will not get put off by this and simply go out and buy himself a decent GPS.

[cjhants]

having flown the same route on my QXC, i find it hard to believe that if the student has done most of his/her training at WW, the visual clues close to WW would not have been obvious. the incorrect route would have taken the a/c close to aldermaston/burghfield, greenham common etc, and anyone who flies from WW would easily recognise Reading. so i dont think we have the whole story.
having said that, things dont always go according to plan on QXC`s, and panic can easily set in. most of the WLAC warriors have a lovely garmin 430, the moving map part of which is not normally explained to students. a bleep from the airspace warning would have alerted the student long before the infringement ocurred.
im with those who say that GPS must be taught in the syllabus.

[IO540]

anyone who flies from WW would easily recognise Reading

The reality is that Reading is just a big collection of houses, and there are loads of those all over the place. One can make these statements with local knowledge but if one goes up without local knowledge one just sees a sprawling mess of very similar stuff. I have 800hrs, BTW.

Recently I did a few days of training out of an airfield N of London and despite flying around there for a few days I would not have been able to navigate visually reliably.

His heading was supposed to be 027 degrees for 72 miles

Flying a heading of 072 instead of flying one for 72 miles is a common human error, like 180 v. 080, etc, but it can't be the whole story because nobody would plan to fly a 72 mile leg on dead reckoning :ugh::ugh::ugh:Maybe in the darkest Africa where you will get boiled up into soup if you land in the wrong place, but not just N of Heathrow.

[stickandrudderman]

IO,
I think, at least I hope, that if you read my second post you'll find that we agree with each other!

[cjhants]

IO - those of us who trained and fly from WW should easily recognise reading. we cant go E due to LHR,so often go out that way, and the lakes east of reading are an inbound reporting point. with aldermaston, the staduim, greenham, M4 etc, if its your home base, you know it like the back of your hand.
agree with you about collections of houses etc, im not good at ID`ing towns i dont recognise.

[High Wing Drifter]

Regarding the mandatory GPS argument, what specifically would a GPS change about the planning and execution of a flight to remove these errors?

[slim_slag]

Nooooooooo !!!!!!

[dublinpilot]

I have to put my hand up as someone who has flown a time or a distance instead of a heading.....on more than one occasion. Luckily I didn't infringe, and I quickly noticed the error, but it's a very easy thing to do.

I created my own VFR plog in Excel, and designed it in such a way that my headings and timings were highlighted, and this solved the problem. With the plogs I'd being using from my school, the mistake was too easy to make.

Making landmarks fit where you think you are, rather than recognising that they are wrong, is also something that is very easy to do.

I also agree with IO....a 72nm leg seems very long for DR.

I really think more emphasis should be placed on radio navigation when training. Not necessarily for navigation itself (no VOR-VOR type stuff), but used to confirm that you are where you think you are, at each of your waypoints.

dp

[ATCO17]

Some interesting responses here chaps. Sorry if my post [I]implied[I]the aircraft was from WW, thought I stated it tracked east from WW.
Not sure about the reliance on GPS - seems to be a fairly common argument nowadays. I have seen infringements before, where the pilot has used the fact that he is "having problems with the GPS" as an excuse. Would pilots maybe become too dependant on it to the detriment of their navigation skills?
DP raised some good points, particularly with regard to emphasis on nav training.

A17

[Mike Echo]

Confession Time from long ago
I trained and flew out of WW many years ago (early 80's) and still remember coming in from the west in the Entry corridor, maps etc put away, perfect trip, stunningly accurate navigation, pride in my skills, at which point one of my pax in the rear seat decided he wasn't feeling well (definately my flying, not long after I'd got my PPL) it only seemed to take a moment with my head down to find a bag from the pocket and pass it back. Looked up and couldn't see the airfield but knew (!!) it would appear so just carried on my heading duh and then realised nothing looked right, odd town, Heathrow very clear in the distance. At this point a couple of brain cells clicked and I realised I'd passed the airfield, a very sharp left turn and reciprocal track got me back in the WW circuit. I was fully expecting a call from LHR and did report what I'd done to the Instructor. Fortunately, nothing official happened, I'm sure I entered the zone but not by very much, but It was a nervous few days awaiting a CAA phone call. Stupid, but after that I never let my attention wander from flying the aircraft!
Mike Echo

[cjhants]

the QXC is a navigation excercise, so it should be done using DR, and this has to be the main tool in nav training. my point was that as the a/c approached the class A, the GPS would be bleeping or flashing MSG, or both. if the student knew how to operate the basics of the GPS, it should have alerted him to the impending infringement.

agree that thruxton/sywell is a long DR leg, and once past didcot/oxford, there are not many good ground features until you get to MK.

[Mariner9]

Regarding the mandatory GPS argument, what specifically would a GPS change about the planning and execution of a flight to remove these errors?

Assuming he'd programmed a single leg flightplan Thruxton-Sywell DCt (as he reportedly PLOG'ed), and had use of a decent moving map GPS (I'll use a skymap III as an example (it's the one I know best), then the following would have appeared on his display as he set off on a course of 072 deg instead of 027:


A purple track would appear on his display from Thruxton to Sywell
A white hatched aircraft track would be approx 45 deg to the right of this
The aircraft symbol indicating his position would move ever further to the right of the trackline as he continued
The cross error indication would show an increasing drift to the right
The class A LTMA and CTR Airspace shown on the display would be getting closer. Eventually an alarm would show/sound.*
The large town on his right wing would show on the GPS as Basingstoke instead of Newbury (which the GPS would show on his left)


*depending on user setting

etc etc. You get the drift (pardon the pun ;))

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

ATCO17, you clearly wrote that the wildy tracked from WW and in no way implied that it was from WW.

The whole point of the qualifying cross country is to demonstrate a pilot's competence to plan and fly from specified point A to specified point B by visual DR navigation. Although the GPS would be a superb guard against infringing CAS and the like, it would also, pound to a pile of poo, become the means of navigation. Proof of competence immediately becoming square root of sod all.

For what it's worth, I too have past memories of flying a not heading, assuming what I could see was what I should see and, really unforgivable, not checking my DI for gyro drift ("Donnington Approach, Golf ***, confirm runway in use is 27"? "Golf ***, Approach; runway in use is 27 and the only one we've got!). All good lessons and well learned from; and fortunately no infringements.

[IO540]

what specifically would a GPS change about the planning and execution of a flight to remove these errors

I don't think anybody mentioned "mandatory", but a GPS gives you constant guidance along a track.

It also provides a gross error check because you load your route into it and the route is displayed overlaying the appropriate bit of the map. It's possible to mis-program but very hard to do so and not spot the mistake at this stage.

Anyway, this is a QXC which under present regs is navigated with dead reckoning, so this isn't relevant as things stand. I think it should be brought into the PPL because human intellect will never get better, the training (in today's ATPL hour builder "just passin' through" climate) will never get better; so we will always get these big busts, and on the assumption (which may or may not be reasonable) that the powers to be would like to improve matters, something else has to be done. People will always jump on anybody suggesting this but TBH I don't see anybody having a better idea.

[Mariner9]

I don't think anybody mentioned "mandatory", but a GPS gives you constant guidance along a track

To be fair, I suggested earlier in this thread that a better safety case could be made for mandatory GPS rather than mandatory Mode S txp

[Mikehotel152]

I would vote against any use of GPS in PPL training.

The QXC is a VFR navigation exercise. If you can't do it safely you shouldn't pass your PPL; simple as that.

By all means buy a GPS as a back-up once you've got your PPL, but until you get your IMC or IR surely the chart must be your primary means of establishing your position? :confused:

[Mariner9]

The QXC is a VFR navigation exercise. If you can't do it safely you shouldn't pass your PPL; simple as that

Completely agree. However, navigation (and I speak as a Professional navigator, albeit marine) is (or should be) about the best use of all available information to verify position, course & track. That information should include all systems in the aircraft capable of providing information, such as GPS, radio nav aids etc. The theory that PPL nav training should be limited to compass stopwatch & chart nav only is IMHO, flawed.

PS IS it mandated anywhere that the QXC has to be navigated by DR?

[high-hopes]

The hardest thing for a student pilot about dead reckoning is not spotting features, roads and rivers per se, but the workload that comes with it.

If you let the GPS take that pressure away from the pilot, you are making the exercise much easier, which defeats the purpose of getting someone used to cockpit management/multitasking.

After all, multitasking is the most difficult thing about flying, if you take that away what's the point ?

[IO540]

The debate comes down to whether you are training pilots to reach a certain standard (in a syllabus drawn up largely in WW1), or training them to reliably fly from A to B.

[FlyingForFun]

Some interesting comments on here.

One particularly interesting one, though:
nobody would plan to fly a 72 mile leg on dead reckoning
Why not? I'm shocked to read a comment like this from two experienced pilots (although it doesn't surprise me to read this from IO540!;)) I've done so, many times, and I teach my students to do it regularly.

I think the key thing which is missing from IO540's original statement is that the ded reckoning needs to be backed up by pilotage - i.e. looking out the window, positively identifying your position (with three unique features if possible), and having a good strategy for making adjustments to your heading if your track is not good. I taught these techniques to PPL students, and found that most of them combined it with track crawling and managed to navigate quite comfortably. I now teach it to CPL students, who all master it eventually, most of them sooner rather than later. I've used it navigate over most of England, a fair part of norther France and Belguim, most of Arizona and Florida, and small parts of California, so I'm pretty confident it works in most different types of terrain (although the type of terrain you need to use for the pilotage aspect does vary from one part of the world to another).

As for other issues raised on the thread, GPS is not the answer. I know a student who got lost on his PPL QXC in a G1000-equipped aircraft, even after his instructor (no, it wasn't me) suggested to him that if he took a quick look at his moving map screen whilst flying solo the CAA would never know. A gross error check would have helped the student in this case - but there is only so much information and so many techniques a student can take on board, and it may have been that this student's instructor decided that gross error checks are one technique too many for him to handle.

It certainly sounds, from the limited information we have, that he did everything right, though, calling for help when he realised he was lost.

Just my thoughts.

FFF
---------------

[jayteeto]

Its easy to get dyslexic with the headings. I had a student out of shawbury fly me on 012 instead of 120. I let it run as long as possible, we made the edge of the manchester zone!! Not bad when heading for Benson!! He has turned out ok, flying Hercules now (I think) and has made squadron leader!!

[ATCO17]

My opening line was that there were FIVE infringements of the Heathrow CTR yesterday. Just flicking through the log, I notice that one of those who cut the northwest corner was spoken to by the ATC supervisor. This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS".
GPS is all well and good if you understand fully how to use it.

A17

[Final 3 Greens]

I would vote against any use of GPS in PPL training.

Quite right, in fact I would insist on chinagraph pencils and ban permanent markers and insist that all candidates handswing the prop, of a rag covered tail dragger with an evaporation cooled engine.

[Bravo73]

There are 3 simple words as to why GPS should not feature in PPL VFR navigation training:

"NO FIX POSSIBLE"


End of.

[Final 3 Greens]

"NO FIX POSSIBLE"

Seems more appropriate to pilotage, based on this thread.

endof.

[Final 3 Greens]

My opening line was that there were FIVE infringements of the Heathrow CTR yesterday. Just flicking through the log, I notice that one of those who cut the northwest corner was spoken to by the ATC supervisor. This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS". GPS is all well and good if you understand fully how to use it.

Yeah, it accounted for 20% of the busts :ugh:

[Dysonsphere]

WW Thruxton Sywell is a favourite QXC at WW I advoided it by doing WW Sywell Kemble. Reading is easy to spot look at the railway layout a very easy was ot working out where you are and there more distinctive from the air. (But you need to know your railways though)

[Shagster]

MH 152
I'm not perfect and people make mistakes, so I hope the poor chap/chapette is not too dispirited and treats it as part of the learning process. At least nothing bad happened!
at least ten departures stopped; same number broken off; stacks held up. Thousands of passengers inconvenienced and 747's 777's etc forced into manoeuvres at low level possibly after long haul flights. The consequences of CTR infringements at major airports are great.
...I do agree with your point that GPS should not be part of PPL, GPS should always be x-referenced and not trusted as sole nav aid.
Best bet when flying in vicinity of Heathrow is calling units for listening watch/FIS, London FIS, SVFR, Thames radar, Farnbro, Southend. They may not prevent infringement but if it occurs, you'll be wearing a squawk that helps get a message to you to stop the infringement early. If unsure of position call emergency fixer service 121.5, that's what they are there for.

[slim_slag]

Yeah, it accounted for 20% of the busts :ugh:Really? What were the causes of the other four? ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Not GPS apparently. ;)

Pareto anyone?

[slim_slag]

I had to look that up, lol.

I bet you 60% of the violating pilots had GPS. No doubt there is a principle which describes a 60:40 result, and you know what it is :)

LHR has been done before. Primary problem is a stupid surface area.

Apart from that, FFF has nailed it quite well.

[Roffa]

LHR has been done before. Primary problem is a stupid surface area.

Feel free to expand further...

[Final 3 Greens]

Slim

I bet you 60% of the violating pilots had GPS.

Don't confuse positive correlation with root cause:} Were they relying on it for primary navigation?

[slim_slag]

I'm not prepared to make that bet, lol

[Mariner9]

I bet you 60% of the violating pilots had GPS

And most likely, 100% of the violating pilots had no training in the use of GPS whatsoever.

But most people on here seem to be of the view that is how it should be.

[mm_flynn]

Slim_Slang, I'll take your bet. I doubt any of the 4 others were actively using a GPS. Or if they were, that it was a nav error as compared to a planning or understanding issues (some people, believe it or not, don't seem to understand you need a clearance to fly in the TMA or CTR:eek:)


Roffa - The LHR point is probably about the 'large' surface area of the zone vs. US airports - A point that is done to death and not that relevant in discussing why PPLs bust clearly marked (if large) zones.

[ATCO17]

mm flynn, you're quite right about the clearance bit, but don't confuse the TMA airspace with the CTR airspace.....CTR GL to 2500 feet, TMA, 2500 to FL245.

[Roffa]

Roffa - The LHR point is probably about the 'large' surface area of the zone vs. US airports - A point that is done to death and not that relevant in discussing why PPLs bust clearly marked (if large) zones.

The western edge is consistent with ensuring traffic descending on the ILS remains inside CAS.

The eastern edge probably isn't going to change.

The northern boundary is consistent with ensuring traffic climbing out of LHR and Northolt on SIDs in to the airways system at the minimum climb gradient remains inside CAS.

Same with the southern boundary for LHR traffic, although there might be leeway bringing it north a bit.

You might be able to trim a mile or two in at the corners but that's about all.

Doesn't seem overly stupid to me.

[Shagster]

Pilots will naturally select the shortest route..and will route close to CTR boundaries. The size of EGLL CTR means that an infringer is thankfully spotted and avoided before it becomes a collision threat. Having said that, there are investigations into reducing the CTR boundaries to the East and West of LL in a bid (amongst other things) to give more freedom to White Waltham, Fairoaks and other GA.

[Saab Dastard]

I just had to mention that gross navigational errors are as old as aviation!

Anyone heard of "Wrong-way Corrigan"?

Douglas Corrigan became a legendary aviator, not because of his accomplishments as a pilot but rather because of a supposed navigational error. In 1938, Corrigan "mistakenly" flew from New York to Ireland--when he was supposed to be flying from New York to California--because he seemingly misread his compass. For Americans, who were caught in the midst of the Great Depression, Corrigan's antic provided a great deal of humor and uplift and he became a national folk hero. To this day, Corrigan's nickname, "'Wrong Way' Corrigan," remains a stock colloquial phrase in popular culture. People use it to describe anyone who blunders and goes the wrong way, particularly in sporting events. Nevertheless, as much fun as Corrigan's incident provides, many people do not understand all the complexities of his story, nor do they appreciate the fact that he was a sound and accomplished pilot.

Now that's one gross navigational error ;)

SD

[IO540]

This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS".

Not really possible with a moving map GPS.

Did the unit he used get looked at?

Or did the "investigators" just take his word for it, rubbed their hands in glee when they heard the 3-letter word, and wrote up the report?

[ShyTorque]

I know a VC-10 navigator who completely missed the UK on the return from the USA! It was caused by programming in 70 degrees of magnetic variation instead of 7 degrees.

[slim_slag]

Doesn't seem overly stupid to me.OK, so now you have told us why you think the edges are there.

Describe the edges and any corners of the London Surface area so it might be easily understood by somebody in a light aircraft navigating by looking out of the window at the surface. Stupid comes in many varieties.

IO540, has anybody else ever got it right? You know, maybe just the once?

mm_flynn, you need to read my bet properly :ok:

[ATCO17]

IO540, we are not "Investigators" and neither do we take delight in having to follow these things up. The pilot was simply asked to contact the supervisor. He would've been asked if he'd realised that he had penetrated controlled airspace and, dependant upon his answer, asked to explain the reason for that unauthorised penetration. More often than not, if there was no erosion of separation between aircraft, controllers are reluctant to go into paperwork - we have enough to do as it is. A simple explanation of the airspace and procedures is enough. That said, a lot depends on the pilot's attitude. If he comes out fighting, with an agressive attitude, denying everything, then radar replays and paperwork will undoubtedly follow. We are here to help, educate and provide a safe service to ALL airspace users.:ok:

A17

[Roffa]

Slim wrote...

Describe the edges and any corners of the London Surface area so it might be easily understood by somebody in a light aircraft navigating by looking out of the window at the surface. Stupid comes in many varieties.

The London Zone is no different than all the other CAS in the UK, why pick on it?

p.s. before mentioning the States, they're not totally perfect either...

http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050707ca.jpg

[Gonzo]

Slimslag,

OK, so now you have told us why you think the edges are there.

With all due respect, Roffa has told us exactly why the edges are where they are; to provide separation between a/c flying on published instrument procedures (SIDs, ILS etc) and a/c outside controlled airspace.

Describe the edges and any corners of the London Surface area so it might be easily understood by somebody in a light aircraft navigating by looking out of the window at the surface. Stupid comes in many varieties.

Sorry, can you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. :confused:

If navigating around the edges of the CTR/TMA is too difficult (which is the impression I'm picking up from your remark above), then a well orchestrated letter-writing to CAA DAP would I'm sure start the process of expanding Class A airspace to make the boundaries more easy to understand whilst flying in a light a/c navigating by looking out the window.....:E

[mm_flynn]

No not perfect - Looks like they have had some help from the UK;).

On a serious note look here (http://skyvector.com/) (put EWR in on the search) for the more traditional wedding cake structure.

In both airspace designs (LAX and EWR) the amount of CTR is small compared to London and steps up fairly sharpish. Do US jets climb better? Or is it a tighter airspace (possibly with less tolerance for EFOT)?

[Roffa]

Much of the irregular shape of UK airspace stems from pressure from various user groups to keep it to the minimum required.

It would be possible no doubt to get more circular as is often the case in the States, but I reckon overall more airspace would be used up in the process.
Cake and eat it, so to speak.

Looking at the NYC airspace, they have smaller surface areas but also shelfs with lower base levels than we'd use here. What significant use a 500ft shelf, or a 1100ft, 1200ft or 1500ft one over a built up area is in an average GA single is debatable but I suppose they can at least say it is there.

[tangovictor]

whilst I agree that gps should be taught, I very much doubt that, it will ever replace being able to nav via tradition methods, especially during a nav x
At least the student had sense enough to contact D & D
mm flynn's comment, I'm afriad you'd lose your bet, I was informed, that most infringers are cirrus pilots, so, even with all that expensive technology

[IO540]

that most infringers are cirrus pilots

Do you have a reference, TV?

[mm_flynn]

mm flynn's comment, I'm afriad you'd lose your bet, I was informed, that most infringers are cirrus pilots, so, even with all that expensive technology

I looked at all of the serious loss of separation infringements last year and NONE were Cirrus. And in the set I looked at, in ALL cases where Navigation was one of the main causes, non-electronic navigation was being used.

Cirrus pilots must just be lucky that they never infringe near anyone else given that they are 'most of the infringers';).

While blind faith in any box of tricks (i.e. GPS) or being a one trick navigator are problems, the lack of acceptance of the vast improvement in situational awareness afforded by panel mounted moving map systems is silly. Maybe commercial pilots should be made to use DR to satisfy their PRNAV requirements any time they are in sight of the surface if navigating using electronics is such a problem:ugh:.

[slim_slag]

The London Zone is no different than all the other CAS in the UK, why pick on it?Because its the subject of the thread.

If you want to bring the States into it, take a closer look at that chart you cited of a far busier area than London. There are published VFR routes across the surface area, one of which doesn't even need a call to Tower. The area to the east is also rather small. You also get good radar service from SOCAL, always helps keep the controllers in the loop.

Gonzo, I think there is an argument that CAS might be made a little larger than neccessary in order to make the edges more easily to visualise using surface features. I could cite the PHX surface area, which is busier than LHR and isn't far off the size of LHR, but which I could describe to you by surface feature in the way requested in my request to Roffa. I really don't think that was a difficult concept.

What size surface area is neccessary is a matter for argument, and I don't think LHR controllers have a monopoly in that discussion. Remember, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it :)

Anyway, it's been done before, and a very helpful LHR controller who quickly demonstrated empathy with the VFR pilot explained it very well last time.

I'm off on hols :)

[mm_flynn]

What significant use a 500ft shelf, or a 1100ft, 1200ft or 1500ft one over a built up area is in an average GA single is debatable but I suppose they can at least say it is there.
If you look closely, those shelves are generally there to facilitate access to Linden, the seaplane landing areas and low level flight above water (particularly the Hudson VFR corridor).

Glide clear is a less rigourous concept in the US (only needs to prevent undue risk to people on the ground - so a river counts as 'clear') and wouldn't prevent flight in the 1500 foot areas.


But the US is a different place with different rules and isn't relevant to the point of 'why are the UK CTRs 'punched through' by people who have no idea where they are or the existence of the airspace they are in', as compared to being nicked because of its size.

[Bravo73]

Maybe commercial pilots should be made to use DR

They are. During their test.

So that in the case of all of their electronic aids failing (such as a moving map GPS losing coverage - hence 'No Fix Possible') and they are VMC, they can still navigate home.

A pilot who is only taught to 'navigate' using a GPS will come unstuck very, very quickly in a similar situation.

[dublinpilot]

I just had to mention that gross navigational errors are as old as aviation!

Anyone heard of "Wrong-way Corrigan"?


Quote:
Douglas Corrigan became a legendary aviator, not because of his accomplishments as a pilot but rather because of a supposed navigational error. In 1938, Corrigan "mistakenly" flew from New York to Ireland--when he was supposed to be flying from New York to California--because he seemingly misread his compass. For Americans, who were caught in the midst of the Great Depression, Corrigan's antic provided a great deal of humor and uplift and he became a national folk hero. To this day, Corrigan's nickname, "'Wrong Way' Corrigan," remains a stock colloquial phrase in popular culture. People use it to describe anyone who blunders and goes the wrong way, particularly in sporting events. Nevertheless, as much fun as Corrigan's incident provides, many people do not understand all the complexities of his story, nor do they appreciate the fact that he was a sound and accomplished pilot.

Now that's one gross navigational error

SD


SD,

That's only half the story.....and the gross navigational error should probably be in inverta commas ;)

Apparently he wasnted to fly from the UK to Ireland, but he needed permission from the US authorities to do it. They refused permission a number of times, saying that it was too dangerous, and nothing would be achieved by it, as it had already been done a number of times.

So he decided to do NY to LA "instead". Fueled up in NY and took off. He claimed to have "entered fog shortly after take off, got disorientated and made the most basic of navigational errors, and flew a heading of E instead of W.

No one believed him. The US authorities took away his licence, but gave it back once he was back in the US. Apparently they were afraid that he was going to try flying back across the Atlantic ;)

fff

One particularly interesting one, though:

Quote:
nobody would plan to fly a 72 mile leg on dead reckoning

Why not? I'm shocked to read a comment like this from two experienced pilots (although it doesn't surprise me to read this from IO540!) I've done so, many times, and I teach my students to do it regularly.


Depends on what you mean by a 72 mile leg I suppose. I've no problem with a student flying 72 miles on the one heading, if that's what you think. But I think it should be split up into 3 legs. This give them a formal check every 12 minutes or so, where they must make a positive fix (on something obvious that they planned already). They are forced to do this, as they must fill in the ATA on their plog.

A 72 mile staight leg, just making casual fixes along the way is likely to leave a student making what he sees match up to where they think they are. One feature is a little to early, the next is a little too late. Now they start to worry are they exactly where they thought they were. Then they start to get paniced, the work load goes up, and it make be 20 minutes before they reach somewhere that they have a proper ETA for.

Sorter legs, with more frequent ETA's and positive position fixes are much better in my experience. I wouldn't have been allowed to use a 72 mile leg as a student, and I certainly wouldn't use it today. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't fly hundreds of nm in the one direction (if I could get through the airspace), but my ETA's wouldn't be 72 nm appart.

If you are teaching students to have eta's and positive fixes for shorter distances, then perhaps we are talking about the same thing.

In any case, the students you are teaching today not more experienced, and are being thought radio navigation along side DR? ;)

dp

[Roffa]

slim, we'll probably have to agree to disagree over the size of the London Zone but if the thrust of the argument is that people are infringing it because one thinks it is too big, that's not really a particularly valid argument for making it smaller.

London LARS is coming soon(ish), so a better radar service is on the way and if the Zone ever gets reclassified, which is quite possible, to C then it's also easier access for the light aircraft as well.

Enjoy your hols.

[IO540]

Will Class C for LHR make any practical difference (serious question)?

Currently, UK Class D is being operated like US Class B.

Most European Class D is operated like US Class C but some (the busy bits) is operated like UK Class A.

In the US you can enter C with just a 2-way radio contact (and a Mode C transponder) so - short of some emergency taking place - you cannot be refused entry. In Europe, VFR traffic can always be refused entry.

Of course none of this is relevant to a nav error and a bust.

Re the 72 mile leg, yes, no problem if you are taking fixes along the way. However, it's not easy to find a 72 mile straight line which has unambiguous ground features all the way, say every 10nm.

[Roffa]

Will Class C for LHR make any practical difference (serious question)?

It should for light aircraft (and I'd argue we already operate D like C, not B if we're going to make any such comparisons). I don't think anyone will argue that the Thames and SVFR controllers who look after low level traffic in the Zone are not helpful, however their hands are tied at times due to the airspace being Class A.

One light a/c going ASC-BUR and it's difficult to have another one going the other way on the same route because they need IFR separation.

With Class C the light a/c will still need to be separated from the IFR traffic, but not from other VFR traffic so the airspace will become less restrictive for the lighter end of the spectrum. The fact that there are also deadicated low level controllers also eases the access issues.

On a different note, I'd be interested to see the IFR departure/arrival routes at LAX with regards the VFR corridor.

An interesting exercise for someone might be to take a look at all the SIDs and arrival routes from the major airfields in the London area and how they interact and then come up with a feasible corridor that would get you from, say, south of Gatwick to north of Luton. Try and do it without modifying any of the current structure as environmental and noise concerns makes that extremely difficult to accomplish...

[IO540]

Two Cirruses.

How many serious CAS busts this year so far?

[Roffa]

To end of June for NATS units 19 involving a loss of separation of which 4 were of the most severe category.

270 other infringements which may or may not have caused disruption to normal ops but not graded as a safety significant event.

[High Wing Drifter]

Mariner9,

Thanks for your explanation. Although your description is really about the execution of the flight rather than the planning (where I think the problems probably root). In essence, you are saying that so long as the pilot is trained, so long as they follow the correct procedure and so long as the database is up to date, they won't have any problems.

My contention is exactly the same without GPS. I must admit to getting a little frustrated when the blame is placed on visual rather than magenta navigation. DR is not a high workload procedure and so long as you are properly trained, follow the correct procedure and are up to date with ais.org.uk you will not have any problems.

GPS or not, situational awareness is everything.

[Fuji Abound]

I wonder how many of you that promote DR have entered a precision flying competition?

Scrub the spot landing (for the purpose of this discussion), but how accurately can you navigate the course.

The reason it is a competition is that it is an "art". Some are no where near good enough (or indeed as good as they thought they were), and some are amazingly accurate.

There are no precision flying competitions using GPS.

It wouldn’t make for much of a competition because they are accurate 99.9% of the time.

So if you want to route around, but close to zones, negotiate VRF routes, or perhaps make journeys half way across Europe and still leave yourself with plenty of capacity to attend to other tasks and enjoy the flying you had better get yourself a GPS with a moving map and make sure you know how to use it. If you do (with the emphasis on knowing how to use it) I can guarantee you will never infringe a zone or get lost.

If you enjoy map reading and dead reckoning promote it because it is a skill that should be enjoyed and appreciated, but do not make out it is as consistently reliable and accurate as GPS in a wide range of pilot hand's of different skill levels.

Not much is asked of pilot’s in terms of their interaction with what’s around them - in fact it boils down to don’t make a nuisance of yourself by flying too low and don’t zone infringe. That is why I feel if you doubt your DR skills it is irresponsible not to have a GPS in the cockpit with you (by all means just leave it switched on, and don’t look at it) but at least when you are not quite sure if that spread of houses is Reading or some other place you can use the GPS to over come your doubts and save yourself from upsetting those nice fellas at Heathrow.

[High Wing Drifter]

Hello! You missed my point. I don't believe I promoted DR. I believe I wrote that if you don't have the wherewhithall to maintain SA neither a GPS nor DR are going to be much good to you in the long run.

One may not feel comfortable flying DR, perhaps that is because said person is experienced with the proper kit to fly navaids and GPS and knows how to maintain their SA, I'm not that kind of person but people like IO540 do seem to know their stuff and I'm not going to say my way is better than theirs! On the other hand if said person is inexperienced, then a GPS is probably not going to be a solution their problem.

[eyeinthesky]

Roffa:

I think the point about the LL CTR might not be its size but its shape. If its boundaries or the corners of it were aligned to ground features which were easily indentifiable from the air rather than a generic CTR shape as it is now, then it might be easier for pilots, GPS equipped or not, to find those points.

Ever tried spotting the NE corner from the air? I used to fly in there regularly on traffic spotting flights and even then it was challenging to spot the exact corner if you were awaiting clearance in.

[mm_flynn]

I think if the type of infringement that NATS/CAA/ etc are really concerned about was edge nicking at corners and underlying airports, then there would be merit in smaller size/ better alignment to ground features. But most of the high risk ones are people blundering straight through controlled airspace. Lets get that one right and then look if we have a problem worth solving on the edges. (Yes I do know that traffic could have been at the edge, and yes it still does close 5 mile radius, ground to altitude + 5000 ft, but we have to start somewhere)

[chevvron]

Visual cues wouldn't necessarily help. I had one recently where the pilot had just flown past Denham heading south and was over the M25, and still didn't realise he was in the Heathrow CTR!!

[IO540]

The whole area is built-up in a largely random manner which makes map reading very ambiguous. So, the whole business of visual cues stands and falls completely according to the pilot's local knowledge.

If you know your way around then it's all "obvious", of course.

I would not even dream of flying around there without radio navigation for primary guidance, on a carefully pre-planned route. For a random bimble, a moving map GPS is the only way. It's not just controlled airspace; there are various ATZs there. Plus one has to be conscious of the glide clear rule, being as one must below 2500ft.

Still on the subject of busts, how many serious level busts were done last year by CAT (that's two "professional" pilots in the cockpit) ?

[scooter boy]

Excellent non evidence based anti-GPS rants chaps!:D

GPS remains my primary source of Nav data both in my helicopter and fixed wing aircraft :E (although I have the VORs/ILS tuned during IFR F/W flights). In fact I have no VOR/ADF equipment in the helo (just more dead metal to carry around for little benefit). Yes I have seen NO FIX POSSIBLE but only for a few seconds out of 1400hrs+. I am never IMC in the helo and worst case scenario would put it down in a field if necessary.

I do carry a current chart, sometimes with a line drawn on it if I am in unfamiliar territory and I plan as carefully as possible. I also look out of the window both to confirm position and look out for other aircraft.

Airspace infringements in my limited flying career = ZERO.

But having GPS is not enough, knowing how to use it is the real answer. So whether the infringeing aircraft were Cirri or not is irrelevant.

The problem with studes doing ded reckoning is that every group of houses looks the bloody same when you are on a solo X-C in an old bag of bolts ****ting yourself :\ about having a midair or the engine stopping and trying to fly straight and level to boot.

GPS should be taught as part of any PPL syllabus IMHO.

SB

[Fuji Abound]

Excellent non evidence based anti-GPS rants chaps!

Yes, in this GPS, anti GPS debate, come why do we have so many "busts", I really dont understand how the anti lobby support their position.

It leaves me wondering how many of the anti GPS lobby have used a moving map GPS.

Strangely, the map shows you exactly where you are in real time. It shows you the important ground features and it shows you the controlled airspace. It is dead simple.

Now I appreciate there are some who struggle to read a paper map and who have no situational awareness what so ever. Whether these people should be pilots is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are likely to struggle more with DR if they struggle in this way.

If you take the time to make sure you are familiar with your GPS and adopt some basic practices to ensure that if you use it for route planning the route you have entered corresponds with the route you intended to enter it is almost impossible to become lost or "bust CAS".

Those that say it is not reliable simply do not have the evidence to support their argument. You will read on here time and time ago pilots with 1,000, 1,200, 2,000 hours of time and have never seen a loss of signal for more than a few minutes. Of course you should have a plan if the GPS fails and as long as you have a realistic plan even if you have become very dependant on your GPS it will still get you out of trouble with "busting CAS" in the very unlikely event the GPS fails.

[Roffa]

IO540...

Still on the subject of busts, how many serious level busts were done last year by CAT (that's two "professional" pilots in the cockpit) ?

Getting a bit off topic but you'll probably find what you're looking for at the Level Best (http://www.levelbust.com/) site.

You won't find me arguing against GPS though it is always useful if folk do know how it works, some of the gotchas and also databases are kept up to date.

[Roffa]

Incidentaly level busts, infringements and runway incursions are the three biggest safety issues concerning NATS.

For anyone interested the new NATS Strategic Plan for Safety (http://www.nats.co.uk/article/122/103/nats_publishes_new_strategic_plan_for_safety.html) can be viewed on-line.

[ATCO17]

Roffa, I echo your thoughts - nothing against GPS at all, as long as it is used correctly. However, many have associated these infringements with student PPLs on Cross Country exercises. In fact, very few are attributable to students. The majority of the guilty are qualified and occasionally high time pilots. The gist of the thread was why does this happen and how can we prevent it, not a pro/anti GPS topic.

A17

[IO540]

I am not aware that anybody has researched this professionally.

The Ontrack report, with categories like "get-home-itis" and "over reliance on GPS" is the one attempt I know about but is nearly useless.

One thing is certain: so long as people do dead reckoning / visual nav only there will be busts, at about the present level, and nothing can be done about this. This is because GA pilot currency is not that great; the national average is somewhere in the region of 10-20hrs/year and at that level the man is only just hanging in there in terms of cockpit workload. You get away with it in familiar territory (and that is exactly what many pilots do) but sometimes not when going further afield.

[FlyingForFun]

Those that say it is not reliable simply do not have the evidence to support their argument
As someone who supports the teaching of ded reckoning on the PPL syllabus, teaches these methods regularly at work, but also has a GPS which is used regularly at work, I think you're missing the point of the so-called "anti GPS" lobby.

I am not anti GPS. It is a wonderful tool, the best aid to navigation and situational awareness since, well, probably since the map.

However, it is vital to realise that all navigation must be based around flying the correct heading for the correct time. Then, a pilot must be aware that any planned heading and time will not be 100% accurate, and must have a means of adjusting a planned heading and time.

The method of adjusting the planned heading and time is what distinguishes one method of navigation from another. Looking out the window is not only a very good way of doing this, but it is also a very good way of teaching the principal.

Once the principal has been taught and understood, other methods can be introduced. This can include taking regular fixes from off-route navaids, or it can include tracking to or from a navaid, but in either case, it is suplimentary to steering a heading and measuring the time.

GPS is simply the next logical step in this process. Once again, the basic idea of steering a heading for a time is important, and then the GPS should be used to adjust the heading and time as necessary to arrive at the destination, or to confirm the current position along the planned track.

The danger of teaching GPS to PPLs is that, because of the presentation of data on the GPS, it is too easy to use it incorrectly, i.e. to fly by reference to the moving map, rather than by reference to compass and stopwatch. If students are allowed to do this during their training, they will most likely complete their training with no clear idea of how to navigate. If they have been taught to navigate properly, however, the use of GPS can be taught very easilly afterwards.

FFF
----------------

PS - Dublinpilot, going back a few pages, but yes, I think we agree about the 72nm leg, except maybe for some semantics.

[High Wing Drifter]

FFF,

A good point well made! Personally, I think your view can be extended to say that the tools for maintaining the multi-faceted phenomenon of situational awareness are also multi-fold; DR and GPS are probably complementary in the that respect. Personally, I don't equate 'moving map magenta navigation' as situational awareness, I suspect, that if the moving map is seen as situational awareness in its own right, then flying becomes a reactive activity - which is not being situationally aware and will plonk one in trouble sooner or later.

IO540,

The issue of recency is a probable cause in its own right regardless of aircraft, conditions or navigation technique. However, I would suggest that one would have to be very un-recent to let a 100 knoter get away from you to the extent that one wonders into the Heathrow CTR. Recency in my view, is something that merely exacerbates an existing problem, I don't believe it can be the route cause for the issue at large.

[Gonzo]

slim slag,

What size surface area is neccessary is a matter for argument, and I don't think LHR controllers have a monopoly in that discussion. Remember, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it :) I'm sure, but there is a minimum. I'd be quite happy to see a smaller London CTR; more space for when I go flying with my friends (shock horror, second LHR ATCO able to empathise with the VFR pilot!:E), if the SIDs were altered to keep away from the edges. Of course, if the CTR is smaller, that's less time we as ATCOs have to spot any infringers that might get close to our traffic.:eek:

I don't spend a lot of time around the London CTR myself, most of my time has been spent chugging around Andrewsfield/Earls Colne way. I do still get a fright when some of my oppos, who have far more flying hours than I have, make schoolboy errors in VFR nav. Many a time I've pointed out that we were headed straight toward Stansted! :ugh:

Hope you enjoyed the hols!:ok:

[gcolyer]

Bloody GPS!!!!

Map, Compass stop watch. God forbid anyone use VOR, DME, NDB.

GPS rant Done (again).

Tin hat on.

[trafficcontrol]

I personally think a huge problem with GA pilots, being one myself, is that many i talk to are affraid of ATC. They give controlled airspace a wide birth just so as not to have to talk to ATC.

I personally think too, although many of us fly in class G airspace only during a PPL should be required to make some sort of contact with a proper controlled airspace unit. Especially around the TMA / Heathrow CTR area

I myself am based at Wycombe EGTB, and decided that it was worth a trip, and so called up Luton radar and did a zone transit. Which was FANTASTIC!

After which, i was "temporarily uncertain of my position" as i prefer to call it! This was after i had left luton zone and was clear of their airspace.

visibility dropped soon after and i was concerned about drifting into Luton airspace again... I then realised my aircraft had ADF failure to which i couldn't track WCO NDB which would have certainly kept me clear of Luton and in the direction i required.

So i asked luton radar for a position fix and a bearing to wco.

They were very helpful, and i didnt feel like a prat for asking!

My message is, ATC units are there to provide you with a service. If in doubt ask.
Unfortunatly there have been many incidents where people have tried to hide the embarrasment over the radio by not asking and / or realising they have breeched controlled airspace and thus turned off the transponder which for a controller i would imagin is even worse, as now he/ she doesnt know where you are.

If in doubt Ask! If you dont know the frequency, London info, or D&D 121.5

at the end of the day, its not worth your licence, or a hefty fine that could come without!

I found Luton zone transit a wonder for experience!

Sam
TC

[michaelthewannabe]

I really don't get all this animosity towards the use of GPS in the PPL. It seems a little dogmatic.

I agree wholeheartedly that a PPL holder must be entirely competent in navigating VFR without GPS or radio nav. But surely there is so much to gain by using GPS in a manner that robustly complements VFR navigation. I'm under the impression that there is a growing body of "best practice" for using GPS in this way: and if this is the case, then tuition of this best practice should be incorporated into the PPL. It's possibly worth keeping the QXC GPS-free, along the same principle that elementary radio-nav is taught in the PPL but not significantly tested.

[IO540]

The issue of recency is a probable cause in its own right regardless of aircraft, conditions or navigation technique. However, I would suggest that one would have to be very un-recent to let a 100 knoter get away from you to the extent that one wonders into the Heathrow CTR. Recency in my view, is something that merely exacerbates an existing problem, I don't believe it can be the route cause for the issue at large.

I think the factors I gave are contributory but I agree they are not the whole answer.

In any given year, countless thousands of GA pilots weave their way about that area, using all kinds of nav, ranging from map reading to GPS. The "true locals" just "know" where they are, without a map - I know because I've flown with a few of them.

And only a few hundred, say 1%, bust some piece of CAS.

It would be useful to find out just what this 1% did, which the other 99% or so didn't do.

I think many other pilots get lost, both PPLs and students, but they get away with it. One student I trained with got totally lost on his QXC. The instructors were biting their nails for the max possible fuel endurance time; about 5 hours and then got very worried. Eventually he phoned in... he ended up wondering around Norfolk or Suffolk for hours and eventually saw a runway and landed on it.

I suspect those 1% were just unlucky. Low currency means high cockpit workload and mistakes are more likely. I've flown 220 instead of 200 a few times, or set the wrong target altitude/level on the AP. Anybody can do it, even professional pilots do it all the time.

There are IMHO two approaches to this: just accept it as something humans will do no matter what, or drastically overhaul the training process. One could argue this both ways.

The FAA has a good approach: if you turn up on the checkride with a GPS+AP equipped plane, you need to show you know how to use the equipment. This ensures that all recent PPLs know these basic things, while avoiding the FAA getting blamed for making the PPL more expensive. Whereas in the UK we just pretend this kit doesn't exist, and then moan that some pilots don't know how to program the GPS. Americans learn dead reckoning too (PPL and CPL) but it's quite difficult today to come out with a PPL without having learnt how to load up a panel mounted GPS.

[Fuji Abound]

The danger of teaching GPS to PPLs is that, because of the presentation of data on the GPS, it is too easy to use it incorrectly, i.e. to fly by reference to the moving map, rather than by reference to compass and stopwatch.

Why. That’s the way its been done since - well forever.

Times are changing.

I learnt to use a sextant. You will be hard pushed to find a yachtie that can.

I remember my first Decca set. You relied on DR because you couldn’t rely on the Decca.

It is becoming the norm for new aircraft to have a panel mounted GPS. I suspect that G1000 glass screens will end up cheaper for the manufacturers to fit than traditional instruments. At the moment the profit margin is high, but there are huge savings in fitting two glass panels and a rack of avionics conveniently located somewhere else in the aircraft than shoe horning a collection of traditional avionics into a panel.

Times are changing.

We have always plotted a course, steered a heading and compared how well this is worked out compared with some other reference (be it visual cues, VORs, DMEs or NDBs). Gradually we fine tune our heading and end up with something that is acceptably accurate.

Good fun, yes, but efficient and intuitive, I doubt it, we do it that way because well we always have.

Give a student a G1000 and a magenta line and he will approach getting from A to B in quite a different way.

Ah, I hear you say, but just wait until a sun spot sneaks up unexpectedly and watch the chaos ensue. You may be right, but most people couldn’t replace their fan belt with a pair of stockings, but fortunately fan belts are also a lot more reliable than they use to be.

[Mikehotel152]

Just to clarify my earlier comment, I'm in favour of the use of GPS in GA. I love gadgets and I want one.

I just think the PPL is such a wonderful mixture of new knowledge, new sensations, new motor skills, the fear/exhilaration of that first solo, the skill test that it should be kept simple.

Put it this way, once you've learned to navigate by a chart you will not have a problem teaching yourself to use a GPS, just as once you know how to fly a C152 you can probably learn to fly most prop aircraft.

Anyway, this thread was about CTR infringements and I maintain my view that a pilot flying VFR should be able to avoid Heathrow's CTR without needing a GPS!

[high-hopes]

Americans learn dead reckoning too (PPL and CPL) but it's quite difficult today to come out with a PPL without having learnt how to load up a panel mounted GPS.

Well they don't actually
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.

[mm_flynn]

A. TASK: PILOTAGE AND DEAD RECKONING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to pilotage and dead
reckoning.
2. Follows the preplanned course by reference to landmarks.
3. Identifies landmarks by relating surface features to chart symbols.
4. Navigates by means of precomputed headings, groundspeeds, and
elapsed time.
5. Corrects for and records the differences between preflight
groundspeed and heading calculations and those determined en
route.
6. Verifies the airplane's position within three (3) nautical miles of the
flight-planned route.
7. Arrives at the en route checkpoints within five (5) minutes of the
initial or revised ETA and provides a destination estimate.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings, ±15°.

B. TASK: NAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND RADAR SERVICES
(ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; Navigation
Equipment Operation Manuals, AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to navigation systems
and radar services.
2. Demonstrates the ability to use an airborne electronic navigation
system.
3. Locates the airplane's position using the navigation system.
4. Intercepts and tracks a given course, radial or bearing, as
appropriate.
5. Recognizes and describes the indication of station passage, if
appropriate.
6. Recognizes signal loss and takes appropriate action.
7. Uses proper communication procedures when utilizing radar
services.
8. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
headings ±15°.

1-25 FAA-S-8081-14A
C. TASK: DIVERSION (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to diversion.
2. Selects an appropriate alternate airport and route.
3. Makes an accurate estimate of heading, groundspeed, arrival time,
and fuel consumption to the alternate airport.
4. Maintains the appropriate altitude, ±200 feet (60 meters) and
heading, ±15°.

D. TASK: LOST PROCEDURES (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25; AIM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to lost procedures.
2. Selects an appropriate course of action.
3. Maintains an appropriate heading and climbs, if necessary.
4. Identifies prominent landmarks.
5. Uses navigation systems/facilities and/or contacts an ATC facility for
assistance, as appropriate.
Your Florida friends must have had lucky shots with examiners who don't check the very first requirement of the navigation section of the PPL

[IO540]

Very lucky shots I would say. The FAA checkride is very thorough, IME.

[bigfoot01]

My view is that GPS should be taught during PPL. I have a cracking unit, but there are no agreed procedures and I learnt to use it by making mistakes. I agree that Students should be taught to not rely on it, but Solo and Instuctor exercises could be developed for with and without. When I did my solo exercises, nobody disabled the RNAV equipment on my plane and I tuned them in because they were there and I was trained in the use of them. If I went flying with a fellow pilot now and didn't tune in RNAV, they would probably start doing it for me and look strangely at me ; - )

[Bravo73]

Just so that you are aware, mm_flynn and IO540, high-hopes didn't mention anything about an FAA checkride:

Well they don't actually
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.

[tangovictor]

Well they don't actually
I've spoken to JAR PPL's that trained in Florida and learned navigation solely by reference to moving map GPS.

Doesn't surprise me one bit, lets hope the CAA read this also

[high-hopes]

correct Bravo

anyway I got it from the horse's mouth, but the horse could have been telling lies to justify their nav shortcomings.

Not that the JAR checkride allows GPS navigation anyway.

[mm_flynn]

I stand corrected - HH's comment seemed a response to IO's quoted comment on FAA training and check rides. I do find it surprising that JAR training in the US (but regulated by Europe) has moved to pure moving map as compared to JAR training in the UK which AFAIK has no GPS training and no requirement for electronic aids or interaction with Radar units.

[Crash one]

I am just a brand new NPPL rookie. Our training school makes little mention of GPS except "Then you will go & get one & forget all this DR stuff".
Therefore I am at the stage of thinking they may make life a lot less stressful, but, what if? computers being what they are.
I also believe that DR was "designed" in the days when, like James Stewart did, Spirit of St Louis, hang out the window "Which way's Oireland?" So perhaps we do need something more in keeping with this century, But, only after we know the real thing, the batteries last a long time anyway.
So total abstention from GPS till after the QXC/GST, then the offer if required of further training by someone who knows how to use them, not just buy it & read the book.
Many moons ago I was at a nav training evening. The instructor (ex Spit jockey) said "We will plan a route from London to Truro, so what is the track? Being a twit I said "About westish" The guy sitting next to me said in a pompous tone "No no we have to be considerably more accurate than that" fiddling with his new electronic nav computer, "We actually steer 078 deg magnetic" or thereabouts. The answer was obvious "Take a big packed lunch & we'll see you in a month".
I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation so maybe that scenario is no longer possible today. I'm just a bit wary of putting my life in the hands of a microchip. Or maybe I'm just too bloody old.

[IO540]

I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation

I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.

I've never used an "electronic nav computer"; there is no need for one.

If VFR, I plan the route on the paper chart (for CAS and terrain clearance), in minutes draw it in Navbox (http://www.navbox.nl) Pro, print off the plog, optionally enter it (using waypoint names, never coordinates) into the GPS, and fly the GPS track.

If IFR, it's planned using one website (http://rfinder.asalink.net/free/), verified using another website (http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.be/chmi_public/ciahome.jsp?serv1=ifpuvs), loaded into the GPS and off one goes.

No wind calculations are ever done (other than how it affects GS and thus range) because with a GPS one gets continuous track guidance.

[Bravo73]

I have not yet even seen a GPS unit in operation

I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.


You're being very good at reading what you want to see today, IO540 (rather than what has been written).

What Crash one actually said was:

I am just a brand new NPPL rookie.

For all we know, the aircraft that Crash one trained in were only equipped with a magnetic compass, a stopwatch and bl**dy big windows (to look out of!) ;)

[slim_slag]

Stop being so dismissive IO540. Let Crash One and his instructors do it their way. Crash One, put him on ignore, and enjoy learning how to use a compass and stop watch. Far more interesting and fun than these boring electronic gizmos. Make sure you keep an eye on the weather up there, can get dodgy.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.
What a bizarre comment.

The greatest single thing that stops people broadening their horizons and going to interesting far away places is the weather, not anything to do with navigation. So the greatest single thing to overcome this would be a magic wand. (Or possibly an IMCR or IR, but many of us here fly for fun and sitting in cloud wouldn't count as fun.)

[tangovictor]

Crashone has it about right, I recently passed my nppl m, using traditional methods for nav x's, and Im very glad I did so, I have since purchased a garmin 296, reason for choice ? garmins fantastic aftersales service & the availabilty of a 296 training video/dvd, I have never been taught anything about gps, so at least the dvd gives me a fighting chance

[Crash one]

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.
Our fleet are C-152, 172 & Grob 115
I was trained on the 152, would have preferred the Grob but when I started it wasn't always available. The Grob has a GPS of sorts, the 152s have compass, DI, VOR, one of them even has a transponder! & we carry stopwatch chart etc. I quite enjoyed it, especially as it gets easier with practice.
On my QXC it was rain squalls, black cb in patches & some blue bits, no CAS in sight, the VOR was useful as I could dodge round the black bits without having to worry about getting back on track, Destination Perth so just followed the radial.
In the circuit & training area it would take a complete dummy to bust the Edinburgh zone. So perhaps we are lucky up here with so much class G, widely spaced towns/villages/lochs etc as landmarks.
I did find life a bit more difficult between Edinburgh & Glasgow cos it's far more built up & all looks the same, but, DI & stopwatch works just as well there, speak to Ed approach, very friendly, transits never a problem, just do as they say. I may well come unstuck if I go down to Sussex, having to squeeze sideways between all those zones. So perhaps we have things a bit easier up here, apart from a severe shortage of airfields less than 40nm apart.
Incidentally I am now looking to buy a Kitfox, bloody great fat wheels, compass, perhaps even a radio & wait to see what NPPL people do about floats. That would widen my horizons quite well enough. I have no great desire to go Far Far Away, isn't that were Shrek lives?

[DFC]

Forget GPS. All these pilots needed to do was talk to the FIR and set the SSR code because that prevents infringements does it not? ;)

Who was this student talking to enroute?

A few more posts like this and the someone might realise that getting the FIR (a non-radar unit) to issue an SSR code to everyone they talk to even those in foreign FIRs -much to the dismay of those countries ATS providers does little to reduce the UK's infringement problem.

How many other countries have the same problems?

How many countries have such a disorganised and fragmented ATS system?

GPS may not be the answer simply because navigation may not be the sole reason.

Regards,

DFC

[Mixed Up]

No wind calculations are ever done (other than how it affects GS and thus range) because with a GPS one gets continuous track guidance.


Am I missing something here? When you are sat in the aircraft, wings level, ball in the middle, how do you fly a track when there's a cross-wind? Do you wait until you veer off the GPS line a little and then correct, and continuously keep doing this? I can't think of any other way.:confused:

[Roffa]

DFC pontificated...

A few more posts like this and the someone might realise that getting the FIR (a non-radar unit) to issue an SSR code to everyone they talk to even those in foreign FIRs -much to the dismay of those countries ATS providers does little to reduce the UK's infringement problem.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.

[Crash one]

Mixed up
If this is true then it seems to be a head down follow the bug on the line computer game sort of thing. I'll definately keep my photo realistic HUD in preference

[Fuji Abound]

VMC - reasonable viz.

Gatwick to Southampton - I have no idea of the actual heading but lets say it is 230 degrees.

Off you go using your HUD (because there be those that say with GPS your head is down in the cockpit) and point selected on the horizon heading 230 degrees.

Glance at the map (and with any luck the command bar also on the display showing your cross track error) and oooh bit left of track, select a new point on the horizon and give that a go. Within a few minutes you will have a point on your HUD that roughly keeps you on the "magenta" line.

No cross refering to your map, no worrying about whether you have found the correct ground feature you were expecting, just eyes up, an occasional glance at your moving map to check whether a small adjustment is needed and to confirm that the ground features look like those on the map.

Cant go wrong really. :)

Give it a try - you will be surprised how easy it is. :) :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Just like, in fact, trying to make a sailing boat track towards a particular target. Which is easy enough. (And don't forget that sailing is harder because there are three vectors to worry about - heading, wind and tide - rather than just two - heading and wind.)

[Fuji Abound]

.. .. .. and if you are beating, and reacting to the lifts and luffs even the wind is far from constant - infact the lifts might be 20 degrees or more, at least whilst flying the cross wind component is no where near as relevant to whether or not you make the windward mark :).

[high-hopes]

Quote:
I find that almost unbelievable - to train someone to PPL level without showing them the greatest single way to broaden their horizons and go to interesting far away places.
What a bizarre comment.

The greatest single thing that stops people broadening their horizons and going to interesting far away places is the weather, not anything to do with navigation. So the greatest single thing to overcome this would be a magic wand. (Or possibly an IMCR or IR, but many of us here fly for fun and sitting in cloud wouldn't count as fun.)


The only thing that's stopping me from going far away places is not the lack of GPS..... it's the lack of something else called money

If I could afford frequent and long range flying, I would probably own a plane and therefor even buying a GPS wouldn't be an issue.

Some people on here seem to belittle what your average PPL does (only VFR, same destinations, short range blah blah) without thinking that it takes a lot of money to buy your extra ratings and skills. Give us time !

Anyway this is seriously drifting away from the initial thread and also becoming very boring ! :)

[Crash one]

If I remember correctly in my days in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, HMS Ark Royal navigated the Singapore Straights with visual reference to the various brewery signs, Guiness, San Miguel, Tiger etc by triangulation. Must have worked as we never hit anything. Not much in the way of GPS in the 60s.
Perhaps GPS has it's uses but not as the primary system in light GA. How many flight schools worldwide instruct in "glass" a/c from ab-initio? I would guess not a lot.

[Crash one]

Socal App
Sorry, I stand corrected. The question I should have asked is. How many flight schools teach GPS nav as primary method only, ignoring the map & compass whizzwheel system?
If you are going to say lots of them over there then that would be bad news.
I nearly asked how many driving schools use automatics, we are a bit antiquated over here & still use a stick to stir the gears with, but I did think that would get me a smack!

I'll go along with the years ahead bit too, trouble with this country is Joe Public thinks an aeroplane is a thing that takes him & his kids to Spain once a year to get pissed & that is all. We have to fight just to keep GA in existence.

[mm_flynn]

Socal App
Sorry, I stand corrected. The question I should have asked is. How many flight schools teach GPS nav as primary method only, ignoring the map & compass whizzwheel system?

The only one I am aware of is the JAR school in Florida, alleged to teach only GPS nav ;)


Trying to drag it back to EGLL infringements - There is something going seriously wrong with the execution or teaching of Nav and we need to get our house in order. I also, believe the very different approach in the UK vs the USA towards Navaids in general and GPS in particular is a contributoory factor. A surprisingly large number of basic PPLs I have met seem to have no clue on Nav other than the DR/Pilotage skills required in the PPL.

[High Wing Drifter]

mm,
I'm surprised if UK PPL graduates don't have basic radio navigation skills. My own experience from my training is that sensible VOR, DME and ADF usage was encouraged.

DFC,
How many countries have such a disorganised and fragmented ATS system?
More to the point, how many countries have such a busy and yet flexible ATS system?

[Bravo73]

Some people on here seem to belittle what your average PPL does (only VFR, same destinations, short range blah blah)

Not really 'some people', high-hopes. It's generally just one person... :rolleyes:

[Fuji Abound]

More to the point, how many countries have such a busy and yet flexible ATS system?

Very few, but then we have a long tradition of GA.

Comparisons will inevitably be made with the States.

If they are, it should not be forgotten that their systems are light years ahead of ours. If you havent flown there, you will simply not understand how good they are.

Florida airspace I would hazard is far busier than ours with a much more complicated mix of aircraft types. Flight following (RIS) is available everywhere, handovers are automatic and access to all airspace is hassle free. Add to that the simplicity of weather briefings, the in-flight weather and traffic services that are available and the way in which they manage to integrate commercial and private traffic and it is a world apart.

This inevitably reduces the risk of CAS busts because if nothing else the controller is likely to be talking to you, can see you on radar and will intercept the bust before it becomes too much of a problem.

I know, I know it costs and our system is different to theirs. I make the observation though because I so often read how busy our airspace is and how well we cope, when in fact if you have flown in Florida you reliase the way we do things is not necessarily the own way.

In addition to all that has been discussed, the other single change that would IMHO reduce CAS busts is an integrated AT policy for GA (in the same way that exists for commercial traffic). As the quote says, in the south east the UK has one of the most complicated airspace structures. This structure concentrates traffic OCAS into corridors of 1,400 feet with numerous choke points and alleys between CZs that gives the pilot no latitute for navigational error (or for that matter not spotting other traffic).

I have said it before, (but I will say it again) the south east desperately needs an integrated policy. The much heralded changes may achieve that. IMHO NATS has as much a responsibility to do something as does GA to improve its training and us pilots to accept our fundamental responsibility not to bust CAS.

[slim_slag]

The US examiner will be looking for the candidate to demonstrate navigation using VORs and DME if fitted. Knowing where he is, intercepting and tracking a radial, that sort of thing. The examiner will be far more interested in navigation using DR and pilotage. The oral will require the candidate to discuss this nav method and his flight plan in detail.

At IR level, if there is a GPS fitted, the candidate will have to demonstrate a GPS approach. Otherwise not.

Back to surface areas and busts. It would be helpful if the edges of busy surface areas were defined not only by surface features, but also by DME arcs/VOR radials. That gives the student everything in theory he needs to avoid them. LHR surface area doesn't appear to have any of these characteristics. So it's hardly surprising people bust the area more than they should. Naturally it's pilot/instructor error, but contributing factors have to be the stupid design. We should be removing contributory factors if at all possible.

All my busy airspace (Class B) busts (one, to my knowledge, and another real close one but I was talking to a Class D tower who warned me) have been level busts. I have always known where I am horizontally because I know where the edges are by looking out of the window/looking at the VOR. I have messed up vertically by not reading the altitudes properly, pilot error. Well, that's the ones I know about :)

[englishal]

Am I missing something here? When you are sat in the aircraft, wings level, ball in the middle, how do you fly a track when there's a cross-wind? Do you wait until you veer off the GPS line a little and then correct, and continuously keep doing this? I can't think of any other way.

Because the GPS will give you your ground track, so you adjust that until it is the track required.

Actually IO has some very valid points. Real life nav and PPL nav are completely different - or can be if you want them to be. My real life nav consists of:

Reviewing paper chart
Entering my route into Memory Map / Flight star
Connecting to the internet to download weather and notams
checking
printing out a plog
programming GPS

Doing it this way takes 30 minutes for a long cross country. The PLOG is accurate in case GPS is lost (it calculates wind, GS, magnetic variation, course to steer etc...). One can either program the GPS manually (simple route) or plug one's laptop in and download the route and off you go. I actually find it quite satisfying when the PLOG agrees within a minute or two.

If I'm flying a G1000 type of thing in the USA it is even easier. I know how far I'm going from the paper map and hence whether I can make it fuel wise (or use rule of thumb and range rings :}). I then call 1800WXBrief for a weather and notam brief, jump in the plane and program the G1000.....off we go ;)

IFR is even easier.....ATC tell you where to go :} Call 1800WXBrief, jump in the aeroplane, call ATC - they tel you how to get there, program GPS / G1000 and call for IFR release...easy;)

[slim_slag]

.....Call 1800WXBrief......If flying cross country I'd recommend 1-800-I-FLY-SWA :ok:

[High Wing Drifter]

Fuji,
it should not be forgotten that their systems are light years ahead of ours. If you havent flown there, you will simply not understand how good they are.
I haven't flown in the US, but my understanding is that GA is/was almost part of the essential/practical/useful transport infrastructure, no doubt due to it's size and wilderness expanses. GA has an almost irrelevant practical purpose in the UK, it is 90% sport. As IO540 frequently says, if you need to be somewhere...drive.

The UK will never achieve what the US has. The ATS structure will only become more intolerant of errant pilots and thus more inflexible.

Not sure what you mean by integrated: systems or airspace. My view is that the former means expense that we pay for (no thanks). The latter means joining the gaps between CAS (no thanks). Not sure what other practical and realistic options remain :(

[Fuji Abound]

Not sure what you mean by integrated:

In the States they call in flight following here we call it a hand over.

In short the proposals for a London area (read south east) RIS makes a great deal of sense. So far as the pilot is concerned one seamless service that provides the pilot with a RIS around the conjested south east. We are "promised" it is coming.

The UK will never achieve what the US has. The ATS structure will only become more intolerant of errant pilots and thus more inflexible.

I dont agree. In fact I havent detected any change in the level of tolerance (thank goodness, and well done to all those ATCOs). In fact on a slightly different subject I find in the years I have been flying zone transits are given more readily than ever (with one notable exception!). Moreover, I think the authorities would like us to move closer to the service and systems the US has. Some of that is for cynical reasons perhaps (less CAS busts, better ability to monitor what we are doing) but who cares if it makes for a safer and more integrated enviroment for all airspace users we should embrace these changes.

[chevvron]

The plan is that handovers between London LARS sectors will be 'seamless'; just a frequency change and the receiving controller will already have your details.

[High Wing Drifter]

Of how much practical benefit will that be? It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements.

[IO540]

Not sure what other practical and realistic options remain

There is an alternative if controversial POV: fly on your own devices, in Class G (or Class E), without any ATS service.

That's what mostly happens in UK Class G already. Only a few pilots call up London Info. With modern navigation, it's pretty effortless to just zoom around the place.

And if everybody had a Mode C transponder, anybody who spent money on TCAS would see them (no need for a radar service).

It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements

You are not under any abligation to call up a Class G airfield unless crossing their ATZ. And if you do, what can they tell you? They are mostly A/G radio so can tell you about their own circuit traffic, that's all. And if you have a GPS you can avoid all the ATZs easily to start with.

I never call up anybody unless I can get a meaningful service, and to me that means radar. A FIS is not worth the radio work, for what one gets out of it .... "13 aircraft known in your area"

[Fuji Abound]

Of how much practical benefit will that be? It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements.

Yes we could all go steaming around relying on DR and see and avoid. However there is evidence that for many this does not work. If you want to do so and believe it is safe to do so - then that is up to you. In the first case if your skills are adequate, it clearly is safe, in the second I am afraid the evidence is very much against you.

There are many (including me) that believe the use of moving map GPS (with adequate training) would avoid a lot of CAS busts.

There are many (presumably including NATS) that believe a London RIS would also avoid many CAS busts and reduce the risk of collision. (I also agree).

Why on earth anyone would want to dismiss a genuine initiative to improve safety so that is not going to cost them a single penny defeats me.

Moreover, if you think you are going to steam through someones overhead, and by talking to them on the radio believe this is going to help their local traffic and you avoid each other then you are dreaming. Please read what IO540 has to say.

IO540 also has a sound point about POV - the trouble is it as you gain experience you can forget that when we all first learnt your nav skills can let you down. RIS provides AT the opportunity to avoid CAS busts before they have happened. How often (for whatever reason) do we hear those people who are sensible enough to ask for a RIS - G-XXXX if you continue on that track / height you will infringe CAS. Secondly, and unfortunately, there remains a strong anti transponder lobby. Whatever the merits of their position on this, all the time a significant part of the traffic is not transponding TCAS is not a complete answer. I also accept that cost will remain a significant consideration for some (and understandbly so) for a time to come yet.

In conclusion, IMHO a very well done to NATS for attempting to provide and integrated RIS around London. I for one are very grateful and believe if pilots use it (and in particular it is many of the low timers who need it most) it will be a significant step forward in reducing the risk of CAS busts and will avoid an wholly unnecessary mid air.

[Roffa]

Blimey Fuji, you've changed your tune from a week or two back!

Nice to see though :)

[Fuji Abound]

Thank you. Very happy to accept I was wrong - if I was.

I think the thrust of the points I was making earlier was that I do not accept NATS position in the past. It still reamins my understanding that they could have chosen to provide feeds to a number of units in and around London at marginal cost, but chose not to do so. I do not know whether or not I was misinformed but that was the story I was told by two different ATCOs.

I still stand by my original view that the impact of CAS in and around London in particular creates a singularly dangerous enviroment for GA both in terms of the potential to cause CAS busts and the risk of collision.

I am delighted that NATS appears to have now chosen to tackle the problem for which they have my whole hearted support.

I hope everyone involved in GA makes a real effort on their part to recognise NATS are making a real effort to reduce this problem and to co-operate in every possible way.

IMHO that means transponding if you possibly can, ensuring your navigation is accurate (and if that means using a moving map GPS as a backup because you do not trust your DR skills so be it) and assuming the capacity exists requesting and accepting a RIS.

[ATCO17]

It still suprises me though when I sit at work over an eight hour period and speak to only a dozen or so GA aircraft in the local area, despite many, many more routing around my little part of the world. It doesn't cost anything to call. Quite often I won't even assign you a squawk for a FIS or you don't need to be transponder equipped to receive any service at all in Class G. Most of the time, under a FIS, I have a pretty good idea where you are and can warn you if I feel you are straying towards CAS, or even into potentially close confliction with other traffic. If I was navigating around or close to CAS, I'd call someone for a service, just to get that warm, fluffy feeling inside!:ok:

A17

[Bravo73]

If I was navigating around or close to CAS, I'd call someone for a service, just to get that warm, fluffy feeling inside!:ok:

Hear, hear. My feelings exactly. :ok:

Out of interest, A17, are you allowed/willing to tell us which frequency you work?

[High Wing Drifter]

ATC,

I'm not sure which unit you are station at. But generally it seems to me that Farnborough is at RIS capacity frequently when I fly and is sometimes difficult to get a call in before you need to speak to somebody else anyway. Brize certainly went through a phase of declining FIS/RIS requests and would suggest Lynham, Luton or even London Inf!

I'm referring to weekends. The rare occasion I do flying in the week things are naturally svelt, even the air feel smoother mid-week!

[ATCO17]

Well, fortunately for you, but unfotunately for some of us, Northolt is pretty much manned seven days a week, and more often than not, from 0800 local until at least 2000 local - published hours. There you go! The cat's out of the bag! But hey, only there for another three weeks! To be honest folks, we are depserate for a bit of traffic to work, due to a high training commitment and a low level of local movements over the next few weeks. We welcome your calls for FIS, RIS, or, if you are IFR, RAS! One or two posters have mentioned some of the other units in the surrounding area, but if you are in the northern half of the TMA area, give us a try!
A17:)

[IO540]

Interesting ... never heard of anybody calling up Northolt. Do they offer a RIS? If so that would be useful.

Tell you what you could do to make some work, ATCO17: lobby the CAA to introduce one of the greatest contributions to safety in that area: a GPS approach into Elstree, Panshanger, etc, and you can then do the radar service for it, free of charge since they won't be able to afford to pay for it anyway. This is only partly tongue in cheek, because the matter will have to come to a head if GPS approaches ever take off (so to speak) - because, on the scale of GA utility in the UK as a whole, they are largely pointless unless provided at non-ATC airfields.

[Bravo73]

Northolt. Do they offer a RIS?



Yes


But yawn to the rest of one of IO540's usual rants. ;-)

[ShyTorque]

We welcome your calls for FIS, RIS, or, if you are IFR, RAS! One or two posters have mentioned some of the other units in the surrounding area, but if you are in the northern half of the TMA area, give us a try!

Next time I'm bimbling through the LHR Zone, I'll try to remember to give you a call for a flight information service.

:)

[DFC]

Two things that I must point out are;

1. The CAA encourages RTFs and FTOs to include GPS training as part of the sylabus. However, basic navigation skills and radio navigation still have to reach the required standard.

2. GPS can be used on flight tests with certain restrictions.

Regards,

DFC

[Bravo73]

2. GPS can be used on flight tests with certain restrictions.


:=

Not on a UK CPL(H) flight test, it can't.

I specifically remember the Chief CAA Examiner turning it off (and it wasn't even a moving map GPS.)

[DFC]

Don't know about rotary but the following is the exact wording from the Chief Examiner a few years back;

As a general rule GPS equipment installed in aircraft may be used (in accordance with its installation approval) during skill and proficiency tests at the discretion of the examiner, but not until the navigational skills required by the test have been demonstrated.

Perhaps your examiner exercised their discretion not to?

Regards,

DFC

[DC10RealMan]

Interesting comments about the London LARS service and the rationale for its introduction. I wondered if its introduction is there to help stop infringements of the London TMA, Heathrow CTZ, London City CTZ, Stansted CTR, Gatwick CTR, Luton CTR as well as providing a RAS or RIS to participating aircraft over a geograpically large area, in which case it will take more than one radar controller to do it properly and safely. If on the other hand its primary function is to provide a kind of "Flight following" to stop infrigements then can it properly called a LARS service with the implications of RAS and RIS that that title implies?

[chevvron]

DC10: the eventual plan is for 3 controllers surrounding the LTMA, all sitting next to each other to ease co-ordination & handovers to the next sector.

[ATCO17]

The introduction of the London Lars will be a useful addition to all parties and may possibly reduce the number of infringements, but ONLY if people out there utilise it by calling the relevant agency. As I said previously, many aircraft bimbling around out there, but not necessarily many bothering to request a service.

Shy Torque....be careful what you wish for! :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Yep, I'd better be careful now! :p

[ATCO17]

Seriously though...we, like most of the military ATC units, have a large training burden. Things tend to get a bit quiet at Northolt from August to mid September due to summer hols, parliament in recess, Royals off to the summer retreat etc...so please guys, if you're bimbling around the northern edge of the Heathrow zone or on a navex, cross country qualifier out of WW, Denham or Elstree, give us a call. We could do with the traffic for training purposes. even if you just want a FIS, it gives our guys and girls the chance to get used to the phraseology. Even better if you request a RIS, or, if IFR, and subject to our workload, we'll give you RAS. A benefit to us all I think!

126.450 for those not in the know!

A17.....15 working days left!

[Kolibear]

I fly out of North Weald and on my forays to the west its never, ever occurred to me to contact Northolt. I'd probably try Luton and once when they were busy, contacted Farnborough, except their radar couldn't see me. So Northolt seems a much better alternative.

[IO540]

I guess Northolt has been a well kept secret because no instructor I have ever met has even remotely suggested it.

On the "London LARS" thingy, what they should do IMHO is to make the point that once you are issued the squawk, you won't be bothered except with traffic reports.

Whereas London Info (who I use for a listening watch only) will ask you for position reports and that is unnecessary work if you are comfortably sitting there tracking the GPS track.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

"126.450 for those not in the know!"
I'm flying from Denham to Royston tomorrow via BNN-BPK-BKY is it worth calling in even though I'll be below controlled airspace? It would be nice to have an F.I.S for at least part of journey.

[chevvron]

Some pilots think London LARS has already started; I picked up traffic for RIS just east of BNN today @ 1500ftand the other day one called over the Dartford Crossing (QE2 Bridge) . Don't get me wrong; I don't mind; it's good practice for when we do it for real.

[WorkingHard]

Whilst NOT making any excuses for infringements by anyone it seems the professional drivers have as many problems as do GA in a slightly different way. It does seem as though GA is so severely castigated for interfering with CAT when CAT are sometimes their own worst enemy. What is being done about the level busts anyone? Is it as "dire" as an infringement and if not why so please? Genuine question and not designed to upset anyone please!
See this http://www.levelbust.com/

[IO540]

WH - this just shows that nobody is perfect, which is more or less what I have always said.

People aren't getting any more clever, the PPL training certainly isn't getting any better, so CAS busts will continue.

Even so-called "professional pilots" get it wrong loads of times. Flying in UK Class G one hears a lot of absolutely appalling radio from pilots who I doubt know what they are doing. Flying airways one hears a lot of very bad radio from pilots who presumably fly the same route very often and get sloppy on the readbacks, often to the point where they are frankly unintelligible, so it is no suprise that mistakes are made.

To a large degree one could say this is the job which ATC are paid to do, and they are well paid too. One wishes there was a solution, but every time I suggest my favourite one, I get jumped on :)

[Roffa]

There is a great deal of work being done by NATS with the airlines and other operators to mitigate against level busts.

It is a serious issue but at least, in CAS, one and most likely both aircraft should be ACAS equipped so hopefully worst case scenario should be avoided.

Unfortunately the biggest risk with CAS incursions is the fact than non-transponding or non-Mode C aircraft can be inside CAS and adjacent to much larger aircraft and there's no safety net whatsoever.

IO540, how on earth do you manage to bring ATC pay in to a post on level busts?

Use of SFL info from Mode S and ultimately electronic checking of cleared levels possibly via voice recognition and/or datalink if we ever go completely that way are amongst some of the proposed solutions for reducing level bust events (along with airspace and procedure changes).

[chevvron]

London(Farnborough) LARS will be here on 24 Sept, with limited service from 11 Sep. Frequency will be 123.225. A flyer was e-mailed to GA organisations by NATS this am.

[Mr_B]

Without reading the whole thread

Did the student pilot have a transponder?
&
Was he using Flight Information Service?

I'm learning to fly at the moment and at least two training aircraft have no transponder, I'm not going use those aircraft for cross country navigation.

[scooter boy]

Mr B, I can't be bothered to read the entire thread again either to answer your questions but I would applaud your stance on avoiding the XPDR deficient aircraft for X-C solo.

V wise IMHO.

I once rented a XPDR-less rustbucket C152 (come to think about it it had no navigational equipment either (No GPS/VOR/ADF)) and got totally bloody lost for several hours while trying to find Badminton in fairly mediocre weather for the princely sum of £350. I never did get there!

I had had my license a while and planned the route out to perfection but the first CB I had to fly around made all the chinagraph planning go right out the window.
I didn't cause any infringements that day and ATC were polite, patient and as helpful as they could be but it was an expensive lesson.

Life is too short to fly poorly equiped aircraft (and pay through the nose for it).

SB

[High Wing Drifter]

Fuji,

I thought I would refresh the discussion we had because I've made some changes recently.
There are many (including me) that believe the use of moving map GPS (with adequate training) would avoid a lot of CAS busts...Why on earth anyone would want to dismiss a genuine initiative to improve safety so that is not going to cost them a single penny defeats me.Well, I've gone and done it now. Done bought me a 496. To be honest I'm totally bowled over by it's capabilities and I agree, GPS does make decent A to B trips so much more enjoyable, so one nil to you :). I've also done a whole heap of hours recently in something with a 430 too, but the 496 is actually much better, IMHO, for most sorties.

Anyway, my point is that I appreciate how much the work load is reduced and on the face of it, it does seem incomprehensible how somebody can bust CAS with one of these units. However, from my new more GPS oriented PoV, I can still see how confusing one of these units can be if you haven't really thought about the flight properly before hand (planning being my original point). With or without GPS and with sufficient planning, it seems equally incomprehensible how somebody can bust CAS. Without sufficient planning and irrespective of GPS, it is inevitable sooner or later.

[ATCO17]

Mr B....it's0 obvious you didn't read the first post properly anyway....who said anything about a student? The original post was about 5 infringements of one piece of airspace in one day. As I have said throughout the thread, you do not need a transponder or any navigation kit to get from A to B without infringing. If you have a radio, give the nearest radar unit a call. They can identify you without too many problems, provide you with a radar service and advise you if you are getting too close to CAS.

I have just retired from controlling. I will miss it greatly, especially being able to provide a service to those pilots who are a little unsure as to their whereabouts or the airspace nearby....the majority have been very grateful, and I thank them for their appreciation.

A17 (Ret'd):ok:

[Fuji Abound]

so one nil to you .

Good on you for giving it a go.

You are correct it is not the perfect panacea. I have seen people putting in incorrect routes for example. The classic situation is on departure where the pilot has a good mental picture of where he thinks he is going (from looking at the map), sets off, but finds the GPS is telling him to go some where else (due to entering a wrong route). If the surrounding airspace is tight, problems can quickly follow.

Of course the other situation is that of pilt overload. Weather gets in the way, and a few zig and zags later problems ensue.

The first is of course avoidable by a simple logic check of the GPS against what you might expect. Never blindly enter a course in the GPS, just zoom out and check the course looks like the course you would expect.

The second is more difficult to avoid. I think the key is to have a good mental picture of the route and to consider along each leg what your options would be if the weather were to get in the way. This is were it can help to have the route penciled out on your chart as a chart will beat the GPS in terms of enabling you to quickly take in a much larger area of airspace.

Most moving map GPS whilst having some way of showing the lower limits of CAS do not provide this information in an intuitive way. Maps are little better in that whislt the information is printed on the map it is often difficult to pick up the information quickly and clearly. I feel this is one area where both the database suppliers and the map makers to do a lot better.

For this reason I am not sure the chartless cockpit really works unless you are driving something with a G1000. In that case the large screens provide a situational awareness every bit as good as a paper chart. Even then there is a danger, as I nearly discovered recently. For reasons only known to Garmin upper airways are not shown. A recent flight at FL85 would have taken me across an airway, shown clearly on my CAA chart but not on the G1000. I was aware of the airway and the controller was happy to give me a clearance, but had I just been relying on the G1000 I would not have asked for a clearance.

[chevvron]

NOTAMs for new Farnborough LARs Sector now published:
B1634 - 10 to 23 Sep 0900-1500 daily for controller familiarisation & training.
B1635 - 24 Sep onwards full service 0700 - 1900 daily exc 25 & 26 Dec (one hour later in winter)