Are you going to Infringe CAS Tomorrow?

[zkdli]

Okay I know that this has been done to death on the forums but as someone who has spent a lot of time this week and this weekend avoiding lost pilots - I think that the total for the week stands at around 20....:ugh:

I would just like to be reassured that those of you who read this forum; plan your flights, squawk, and when it goes wrong and you find yourselves in CAS, that you call the unit responsible or D&D.
Please tell me that I am right:)

I am being charitable and assuming that it has gone wrong, from the way some of them turn off their transponders, you might think that it was deliberate...(only joking)

regards your friendly and frustrated controller.

[conflict alert]

off topic but...

I did my first solo in ZKDLI 30 Jan 1980 at NZPP

[DX Wombat]

zkdli, it won't be of any consolation to you but you were not alone this weekend. :( I was at Elvington helping at the BAeA Aerobatics competition where there was a NOTAMed TRA in operation. I lost count after about ten, of the infringements of the area. Some of these were incredibly dangerous. Amongst them we had a T tail twin which ploughed it's way through the box and headed SE only to return about 30 mins later on a reciprocal heading once more straight through the box, a VANS RV Whatever which flew overhead the length of the considerably lengthy runway, Gliders - one of which was only narrowly avoided by the poor aeros competitor and a Robin who did aeros for miles on approach then all along the airfield and through the box turning round to repeat the performance in the opposite direction then returning again. We got that one's registration and possibly the Vans' too. All of those pilots were obviously under the impression that they were exempt from reading and acting upon NOTAMs, prefering to rely on what were obviously cheap, nasty, useless, crystal balls. RAF Radar got one of them and there was a reception committee waiting when he landed at his destination. :E :E :E I'm very interested to know what his excuse is going to be. The only box incursion which no NOTAM could have prevented was by two buzzards at about 5,000'. They stayed on the northern edge of the box until the competitor moved to the E then they made their way, still at 5,000' or so, straight across the box to the other side and out of the way. They were by far the best behaved and the only ones who showed any sort of commonsense! Nobody appeared to be listening to the airfield frequency - we certainly made all the correct calls but maybe they can't be bothered with a radio either. :\

[IO540]

It seems that most pilots still don't get notams, perhaps because it's all internet based and the demographics of the UK GA population work against computer literacy.

And PPL navigation is still in WW1.

What does the CAA (and other interested parties) therefore expect?

I am fairly sure the RAF does not train its pilots to fight a day-only war using maps and stopwatches.

I think the situation is crap too but I have no idea what can be easily done to improve matters.

[Mark1234]

Every flying organisation I've been into (though admittedly a small sample uk side), have an 'office copy' of the days weather and notams printed out and left in a public place where one can pick up and read. (though I do seem to recall UK notams being in a rather unhelpful lat-long notation, rather than related to significant points on the map)

Not the GPS arguament again? As you already pointed out they're not reading the notams, I rather doubt navigational accuracy is the issue in this case. Besides, if the UK GA populace are so computer illiterate they can't get notams, they've got **** all chance of figuring out how to drive the average aircraft GPS.

Personally I'd prescribe some serious slappings until people start taking their responsibilities a bit more seriously, rather than making excuses for them, but hey, that's a bit old fashioned in this day and age..

[zkdli]

Hi Conflict Alert,
Nice off topic! - I soloed at NZPP in 1977 and first flew ZKDLI that year as well!:)

DX Wombat - I feel for you, we have been trying for years now to reduce the numbers of infringements in the LTMA and failed:
1.we introduced squawks for aircraft operating around the zones so that people could show that they we listening on the frequencies - if they get in to the zones controllers know that they are on frequency and can identify them so that we can then vector them clear.
2. we introduced Farnborough LARS (or is that Farnborough ATSOCAS now?)
3. We are producing VFR guides for flying around the london zones.
4. we give presentations to flying clubs etc about the issues so that pilots can see and understand the disruption.
5. when pilots infringe CAS we try to understand what caused the infringement so that we can see any trends.

Yet the numbers continue to go up. The only trend that we have found is that the pilots who infringe all say that they have a genuine reason for being distracted and getting lost. For example one of the recent infringers on a VFR flight to White Waltham said he flew in to the London Control zone because his ADF was faulty..... (on a VFR flight)

The last resort that we have come to is trying to get Transponder Mandatory Zones around Stansted (where the most infrignments occur) so that at least if an infringment occurs we can then be alerted by our own safety nets and if they fail the commercial aircraft have TCAS as a last resort.

That said, there is strong opposition to this one -
BUT - if pilots were able to stay out of the zones we would not have to resort to it:ugh:

[BackPacker]

Every flying organisation I've been into (though admittedly a small sample uk side), have an 'office copy' of the days weather and notams printed out and left in a public place where one can pick up and read. (though I do seem to recall UK notams being in a rather unhelpful lat-long notation, rather than related to significant points on the map)

Reading NOTAMs or not doesn't prevent CAS busts (unless CAS was extended by NOTAM) but it would prevent TRA busts and similar. But I have found that on a typical cross-country (or cross-multiple-countries) VFR flight even a rather clever narrow route briefing might easily give you half a dozen pages of NOTAMs. Because of the old telex format, in all caps, filled with abbreviations and more importantly, filled with placenames you don't recognize (particularly if foreign country) and coordinates you can't place.

So yes I tend to read through the whole bunch but if you want to fly at some point in time that day, you have to do a bit of mental filtering, and then still it may take far too long.

What I don't get is why Eurocontrol, who already collect all NOTAMs for Europe, can't extend their NOTAM briefing application (EAD Basic) to include a graphical/clickable overview of NOTAMs. That would make checking NOTAMs a two-minute job.

Amongst them we had a T tail twin which ploughed it's way through the box

Another tendency I have noticed in some fellow pilots is that if they acquire an aviation GPS, they tend to use that for flight planning as well. They are a marvelous piece of kit for that, much faster than the map/flight computer thing to plot your route. But the problem is that the only abundant suitable waypoints that the GPS and the map have in common are the airfields. So a lot of flights are planned via the overheads of airfields. Not good. Maybe it's time for some IFR-like intersections to be introduced for VFR flight, at locations that are easily recognizable from the air, are listed on the map and are included in the GPS database.

[Final 3 Greens]

Well, you could try running the airspace in a similar way to LAX class B and C and providing a consistent, easy to use radar service for all.

But I guess there are a million reasons why the LTMA is different and could not possibly be managed the same way.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<But the problem is that the only abundant suitable waypoints that the GPS and the map have in common are the airfields. So a lot of flights are planned via the overheads of airfields. Not good. Maybe it's time for some IFR-like intersections to be introduced for VFR flight, at locations that are easily recognizable from the air, are listed on the map and are included in the GPS database.>>

I am an avid user of GPS, but not for flying. Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?

<<Well, you could try running the airspace in a similar way to LAX class B and C and providing a consistent, easy to use radar service for all.>>

I don't know how that functions but I definitely do not like the US system of see-and-be-seen close to major airfields!

[BackPacker]

Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?

Sure, but indeed time-consuming and error prone. Particularly since you'll want the pencil line on the map to correspond to the magenta line on the GPS, normally. Drawing lines from airfield to airfield is easy.

Well, you could try running the airspace in a similar way to LAX class B and C and providing a consistent, easy to use radar service for all.

Don't forget that LAX, together with basically any major airport in the US, has a 30-nm "mode C veil" ring around it. No mode-C transponder, no access, period. From the recent discussion we had following the mode-S situation in the Netherlands, I don't think the UK is ready for any sort of TMZ. So don't just blame the CAA, NATS or the individual controllers, also blame the mindset of a lot of pilots/owners/operators - see zkdlis post above wrt. Stansted.

[soay]

I think the situation is crap too but I have no idea what can be easily done to improve matters.
How about toughening up the biennial review, to check competence in preflight planning?

As others have said, even if you do conscientiously get NOTAMS before each flight, interpreting them would be a lot less error prone if there was an option to present information graphically. A crude (NATS only) solution could be for NOTAMS to include a special file name entry which the software on the web server could convert to a clickable link, and allow each NOTAM submitter to upload the corresponding image file.

[Stampe]

Final 3 greens spot on the money.When I,m flying my 767 excellent service from London Air Traffic.Flying my own light aircraft same pilot ,same Instrument rating, same RT style ...service non existent.The NATs budget doesn,t expand to providing a worthwhile service for GA yet that should be the price they pay for having virtually exclusive use of large chunks of the sky in the congested South east.More controllers some dedicated to transiting traffic and much better controller training required ,less rule based and more open minded...it would of course cost money to make flight training in light aircraft and flight deck experience rides mandatory as in the past.VBR Stampe

[S-Works]

How about toughening up the biennial review, to check competence in preflight planning?

Very good idea.

At the moment it is not a review it is a flight of 1 hour with an Instructor the content of which is the pilot not the Instructors decision. I have just had a couple go elsewhere for their 2 year flight as I would not just fly around for an hour and sign them off. Apparently they did not like have to do a few PFL's steep turns etc.

They have gone to another Instructor who will just sit there for the hour and sign the log book.

It is this type of attitude that is the reason we have so many problems. A proper FAA type BFR would probably help improve things.

[stickandrudderman]

What I know about technology extends only to how to use it, not how to programme it, but I wonder why notams can't be uploaded automatically and compulsoraly onto your GPS so, if you're navigating using GPS as most people do you couldn't avoid having the information presented to you when you enter your route.
Just a thought and probably a testament to my ignorance!

[PompeyPaul]

Got crucified for saying that last time, but I still maintain it. It's fine if you are tracking airfield to airfield, or VOR to VOR but if you are just out brimbling randomly, checking out the progress of the hindhead tunnel etc then it's hard to get the NOTAMs that matter.

And whilst it may be my incompetence that makes it hard to use, or even the fact that I'm a danger to myself and everyone else around me etc etc, as a newbie it's still unintuitive, difficult to navigate and plane bewildering. It could be made MUCH more obvious imho. The results are there for everyone to see, infringement central...

[BackPacker]

but I wonder why notams can't be uploaded automatically and compulsoraly onto your GPS so

AFAIK almost all NOTAMs contain lat/long information in a standard format, although this information is not always present in the NOTAM overview (which normally only shows the free-format text field). Exceptions of course are things like whole-FIR NOTAMs.

Technically therefore I don't think there will be major problems to implement something like that. You might need a little more internal memory, but that's about it. In fact, I just googled a bit and it looks like the PocketFMS team already has something like this on their to-do list.

Furthermore, there are several "amateur" websites that already do something like this. It's just a matter of implementing that in a GPS instead of a PC. So there's proof that it is *possible* to interpret the data correctly. (UKGA home (http://www.ukga.com) and NotamPlot v2 (http://www.notamplot.com) are just two examples.)

As far as making things mandatory - that's going to be difficult. First, of course, it requires everybody to have a suitable GPS - in a day and age where only an ASI, ALT and compass are mandatory for VFR flight. Then the GPS needs to have some sort of interface (via the PC and the internet most likely) to a suitable NOTAM database and this interface needs to work "on the road" as well. Anyone who has tried doing some sort of PC-based flight planning on the road, using WiFi, a cell phone interface as modem, 3G or something like that knows that this is not exactly trivial.

[scooter boy]

WRT LTMA infringements.
IMHO the best way is to have a moving map GPS display showing airspace and to talk to Farnborough LARS.

NOTAMs are more difficult.
There are still obstacles that prevent the online service being at all intuitive.
The other problem is that one often has to deviate off track - usually for weather. So just how wide a track of NOTAMs do you request?

I agree with Stampe the 767 pilot. IFR in the airways is so much easier and the service is fab. No proper service seems to exist to cope with GA IFR flight outside of controlled airspace in the UK. Sometimes you get handed over, sometimes you don't.

BTW I just did my FAA BFR/IPC - in Tarbes yesterday with a great pilot/CFII friend.
He gave me a real workout wrt flying the aircraft and we did all the stuff I generally don't bother to do until I felt comfortable doing it.
I flew Plymouth to Guernsey (filled up with cheap fuel) got DCT Olero from Guernsey and then DCT TBO so the trip was very short - same routing on the way back except I didn't need a fuel stop in the CI and landed in Plymouth with tanks 1/3rd full of cheap CI fuel. French ATC were fantastically laid back as ever.

Well worth the trip.

SB

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<and much better controller training required ,less rule based and more open minded>>

I'd like to know what that means!! Aviation safety depends on rigid rules so how exactly can controllers become more "open-minded" and "less rule based"?

[englishal]

The problems are, as I see it :-

1) Lack of any sort of reliable radar service OCAS - It is hit and miss whether you get a Traffic Service from a civil unit, especially at weekends. Less than 50% chance I'd say. If everyone was using and encouraged to use a radar service around London, you could eliminate CAS busts.

2) Complicated airspace - the Airspace dimensions are not standard. Around London you have loads of different airspace altitude changes, different types of airspace and it is generally a mess. I remember seeing one post on here where someone posted something like "so if I pass south of Luton, so long as I'm above 2500 I'll be outide their class D" - yea you will, but in the Heathrow class A! why does LHR zone have to be so wide N to S? There is no need for it, you could have 1500' Class A base right next to the airport boundary and there is no way you'd have a problem with any CAT.

3) NOTAMS - difficult to visualise Lat / Long and lots of Numbers. I use SkybookGA which generates a route map with Notams drawn on the map. I also phone the 0500 number just before start up.

4) Navigation - Trying to DR navigate around the LTMA if you are unfamiliar is madness in my mind, with all these airspace changes etc....It can be done if you are very skilled, but in my experience with flying with new PPLs, is that they are not all that skilled!

5) Unclear charts. It is very difficult to see the LTMA boundaries on the half mil if you are not familiar with them. I had a look at some mil helo charts recently and they showed airspace so much clearer, with different colour shading in certain areas. Perhaps there should also be a "London terminal Area chart" published, like they do in the USA around large airports?

6) Mode C vale? Good idea, then my TPAS will provide reliable info ;) - in the USA you CAN enter a mode C vale without transponder as long as ATC agrees.

[Sir Vaylance Radar]

If whilst out in your car you are inadvertantly distracted & drive the wrong way up a one-way street & are caught, there's a fair chance of a fine and penalty points. Just as you might be getting done for doing 35 mph in a 30 zone with a fine and penalty points, above you a pilot could be in CAS without a clearance - if they are caught, chances are nothing more than a written warning from the CAA. Now tell me why pilots shouldn't be treated the same as motorists !

[what next]

Hello!

...above you a pilot could be in CAS without a clearance - if they are caught, chances are nothing more than a written warning from the CAA.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just look here:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/372364-caa-prosecutions-annual-summary.html

Greetings, Max

NB: Wouldn't it be a smart idea to hold aerobatics displays and competitions in controlled airspace in the first place? Like inside control zones of airports that don't get much traffic on weekends. It works nicely in my part of the world!

[englishal]

Motorists have road signs telling them the speed limit and the limitations of the road. They also have dedicated lanes to follow, white lines marking the lanes. A motorist who has no clue can drive around London by following road signs and make a pretty good job of it. Motorists only drive in 2 dimensions so it is a lot easier.....

For starters ;)

[bookworm]

I was at Elvington helping at the BAeA Aerobatics competition where there was a NOTAMed TRA in operation. I lost count after about ten, of the infringements of the area.

(H0921/09 NOTAMN
Q)EGTT/QWBLW/IV/M/W/000/045/5355N00059W002
A)EGTT B)0905010800 C)0905021900
D)0800-1900
E)AEROBATIC CONTEST WI 2NM 5355N 00059W (ELVINGTON, N YORKS)
AUS 09-05-0143/AS2
F)SFC G)4100FT AMSL)

"TRA"? I think not. It's a simple nav warning, and the airspace is there for all airspace users.

[ShyTorque]

I agree, that doesn't constitute reserved airspace - looks like it was still in class G. Bad airmanship not to recognise and avoid it though.

I am an avid user of GPS, but not for flying. Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?


These days I use GPS (moving map) every time I fly, VFR or not. It's absolutely routine to programme user waypoints as lat/longs, such as a turning point or a landing site in a back garden, paddock or at a hotel, for example. I always re-check the co-ordinates then review the route to confirm it matches the lines on my chart.

The problem we appear to face is that folk either don't actually know the fundamentals of detailed flight planning, or fail to implement them correctly once en route.

[zkdli]

Well this appears to have turned in to the NATS should give up airspace and give a radar service to those outside CAS debate.

Just to say that NATS introduced Farnborough LARS to provide a service to aircraft outside of CAS to try to prevent pilots flying without a service and getting lost.:)

As for the debate about the complicated airspace, the airspace around Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, and Heathrow has not changed in the last ten years and and in the case of some of the zones, not in the last twenty years.

It may be percieved as complicated, but that is only because it is trying to use as little CAS for the task of the airport and provide the minimum safety distance between aircraft operating in CAS and those that can operate right up[to the edge of CAS with out talking to anyone else.

As for the cars V aircraft argument, I could be flippant and say that is why pilots have maps - so that they don't cross the white lines!!!:O

I don't know though we must be one of the few countries in the world that regularly allow solo student pilots to fly 500 feet from fully laden B747s and yet require that pilot who is professionally qualified to remain 3nm/1000ft from other aircraft in CAS.

perhaps the safest way forward would be to make all CTAs CTRs and that way we would not need TMZ:O
I'm hoping that you all know the difference!

[vanHorck]

Perhaps the arrival of GPS and glass cockpit, things have changed in the minds of the pilots?

It seems to me we are in a transition, where ultimately we will be given GPS navigation which will include NOTAM compliance and warnings, almost like automated flying with the pilot there to check what the machine does?

Thats not so far from the big ships flying, where hand flying is sometimes actively discouraged!

It could be "airways style" routings (though not airways restricted, VFR) but could also be "approved free flying boxes" with warnings (3D) at 1nm and 0,5 nm from the edges

[Sam Rutherford]

On a slight aside, but one advantage of routing (long routes) via airfields or VOR etc. is that you can explain quickly and easily to ATC your intentions. Equally, by flying directly through the overhead you should be completely clear of all the local traffic (who will be either just on or just off the tarmac).

If they have a clear idea of where you are going, quickly and concisely, then the safety level has already risen considerably.

Explaining that you are going via a point "approximately 25nm to the NW of Toytown Intl" is only going to lead to confusion... Even worse if you actually rattle a pile of lat/longs at the poor guy!

Safe flights! Sam.

[BackPacker]

Sam, good point. But this could be mitigated by having unambiguous VFR reporting points, easy to distinguish in the field, on the map and in the GPS. Road, railway, river crossings, edges of towns, that sort of thing.

Reminds me of a story though. As I remember, this was somewhere in California. A pilot was reporting "Over the Big Hill". Cross controller: "Which big hill, we have several". "I'm over reporting point Big Hill, look at your map". And sure enough, there was a VRP called "Big Hill" listed on the map. That was perhaps not the best name for that VRP.

[bookworm]

Just to say that NATS introduced Farnborough LARS to provide a service to aircraft outside of CAS to try to prevent pilots flying without a service and getting lost.

And here was I thinking that the point of the LARS was to stop aircraft hitting each other... -- which it does very well, BTW. ;)

[Pianorak]

Quote:
Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?

Sure, but indeed time-consuming and error prone. Particularly since you'll want the pencil line on the map to correspond to the magenta line on the GPS, normally. Drawing lines from airfield to airfield is easy.

The Garmin 296 has the useful "Edit on Map" facility. Having programmed BKP to Top Farm press "Edit on Map" and move magenta line slightly east away from the Panshanger ATZ which also keeps you clear of the Luton and Stansted CTRs. Takes but seconds.

[bjornhall]

Sam, good point. But this could be mitigated by having unambiguous VFR reporting points, easy to distinguish in the field, on the map and in the GPS. Road, railway, river crossings, edges of towns, that sort of thing.

I used to think that would be a problem. Now I find most IFR "intersections" can actually be located visually with good accuracy. Occasionally it might be a little extra challenge. The type of waypoints we usually prefer for VFR navigation can usually be found close to the IFR waypoint as well, to aid you in locating the IFR waypoint. So by now I almost always use IFR waypoints for VFR navigation; it makes both programming the GPS, filing the ATS flightplan and communicating with ATC so much easier!

Better still, most VFR pilots think IFR waypoints can't be located so they don't use them, meaning less crowded skies for me... :E

I tried programming a full VFR flight with half a dozen "typical VFR waypoints" (churches, oddly shaped lakes etc) into the GPS as lat long once. After 25 mins of punching and twisting, all the while hooked up to the battery cart, I was convinced I'd never do that again. At least not while using panel mount GPS.

[Johnm]

If aerodromes happen to be on my route I check the notams so as to decide whether to fly above the ATZ (or overhead) or a few miles away laterally. If in doubt I avoid laterally to be sure of avoiding gliding winch ropes or parachute activity. It's truly not hard either to plan or to fly. Moreover if you can't manage to get NOTAMs from the web you can get them over the telephone.

[DX Wombat]

bookworm, apologies for referring to the area as a TRA. I drove to Elvington so hadn't needed to read the NOTAMs. :E We had been discussing TRA whilst I was there and I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that one was in existence for the competition. It doesn't, however, excuse the behaviour of the transgressors - only an idiot would go near the place if he or she had read the NOTAM.

[englishal]

I'm often inclined to route overhead aerodromes well above cct height. Easy to spot, if you need to divert, no problem. I'd probably talk to them unless receiving a Traffic service from someone else (e.g. o/h Plymouth, talking to Plymouth Mil and not Plymouth)....

[scooter boy]

Englishal, The other thing that is co-located at some airports OCAS above circuit height is the IAF for the procedural approach (such as the ones at Plymouth). Best be talking to either Plymouth Mil or Plymouth approach if you're flying through the overhead at 3000ft as there may well be an Airsouthwest Dash 8 flying to/from the PY in the procedure.

SB

[Jim59]

As for the debate about the complicated airspace, the airspace around Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, and Heathrow has not changed in the last ten years and and in the case of some of the zones, not in the last twenty years.



Not true. I had to mark new extensions to the Luton Class D airspace on my charts last year by hand.

[PiperCubFlyer]

Not true. I had to mark new extensions to the Luton Class D airspace on my charts last year by hand.

Only four years late then :ugh:

[S-Works]

Am I the only one who find this thread a typical condescending attack by an air traffic controller?

Pilots make mistakes and so do controllers. Stupid threads like this attacking pilots are pointless and just damage the relationship.

[Final 3 Greens]

Bose

No, you are not alone.

I also think that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, if you compare the LTMA to the LAX basin, UK ATC management/practitioners have lessons to learn in providing good service levels to all, but these will not be taken on board, due to 'not made here' syndrome.

[bookworm]

We had been discussing TRA whilst I was there and I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that one was in existence for the competition. It doesn't, however, excuse the behaviour of the transgressors - only an idiot would go near the place if he or she had read the NOTAM.

DXW

I agree. It's the last thing I'd want to be too close to. But I'm sure you'd also agree that there is a significant difference between questionable airmanship in the vicinity of such a nav warning, and an airspace infringement, which is rather more black and white.

[Rod1]

Bose

It is yet another attack, but if NATS are biding for more controlled airspace and more TMZ’s this is the sort of continued pressure which will be applied. I understand the LAA have made several complaints about NATS breaking the rules on consultations, so expect the confrontational stuff (official and unofficial) to continue.:ugh:

Rod1

[steveking]

LAA response to the proposed TMZ

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/LAA%20covering%20letter%20-%20Stansted%20TMZ%20draft%202.pdf

[zkdli]

Hi Bose-x,
Sorry I haven't been able to reply I have been a bit busy working.
This is not intended to be a condescending attack on the GA community:)
I have just seen the weekly stats for the London TMA today and I thought that you would like to know the official number of infringements that was on our notice board.

Yes pilots make mistakes and so do controllers but since the 1st of April, it appears that at least 60 pilots have made a mistake and flown in to controlled airspace without a clearance (those are the ones that were reported, the actual number may have been higher) and 11 of them have caused a loss of separation.
The stats also show that in the same time period last year there were 30 pilots reported flying in to CAS.

When I started this thread I thought that we had somewhere around twenty infringements in the last week but it appears that the total was twentyfive.

As a controller I am getting very worried about this total what do you think of it? Am I just worried over nothing?

[mm_flynn]

As a controller I am getting very worried about this total what do you think of it? Am I just worried over nothing?It depends a bit on what is being measured. Certainly you would expect infringements to be way up with the introduction of automatic detection and reporting systems, which if memory serves was implemented in early 2008. The stats would seem to correspond with this.

On the other hand serious loss of separation incidents in NATS airspace seem to be down 70% from 2006 to 2008. Due to the highly seasonal nature of infringements, it is difficult to have a view if 2009 is going to be better or worse than 2008.

Without knowing a bit more about the pattern of incidents one can't really comment. A loss of separation could be a WW aircraft 1/4 mile outside the ATZ being 4.75 miles and 3000 feet away from someone on approach (I seem to remember you need to generate a 5 miles or 4000 (or 5000 can't remember) foot separation from an infringer) or there could have been 11 butt clenching moments with two targets merging and mercifully both still flying. Very different implications for risk and level of concern we should have.

Not withstanding the above, clearly there are some significant issues in training, planning and situational awareness that need to be improved for pilots.


On your previous comment re student pilots and 747. The UK is in fact very odd in having absolute control abutting against total lack of control/service. However, most developed countries (including the UK) seem to be able to mix GA and CAT in the same general airspace - so no, I don't think the UK is anyway unusual in the general principle of sharing airspace.

[gasax]

I suspect you are worrying unnecessarily.

Automatic detection of infringements makes a lot of sense - in terms of bringing the event to controllers attention, but it does not identify the importance or potential impact.

See the LAA response to the Stansted TMZ and you see tiny numbers of serious infringements. Now there is no doubt that number may be down to effective controller actions. None the less the 'system' a combination of auto- detection, controller actions and even enforcement largely works.

What really worries me is the view from many controllers that a quiet life is much more preferable to offer a service of having to intervene. The classic 'remain clear' response that so may ATC units give to GA.

The contrast with countries like France is very very stark. I arrive close to a French TMA - I call on the VFR frequency and they tell me the routing and to call when clear. A huge contrast with 'remain clear'. It is a mindset and one which seems to come from the private profit orientated operations where controller workload managment is as important as managing traffic.

If NATS are unwilling to give the data which is supposed to support their need to restrict traffic then we are reaching a point where the governed will no longer accept that situation.

[englishal]

and flown in to controlled airspace without a clearance
How many of them were CAT and level busts (i.e. IFR traffic) as opposed to VFR ? For it to mean anything then they type of flight needs to be mentioned.

We were once being vectored by London Control....Suddenly this supervisor comes on the blower and says "Callsign....do you have a navigation problem"....to which we replied "No", then he came back all condecending and said "you have just infringed an active danger area".....to which we replied " we were just flying the heading given to us by the London controller"....Then it went quiet and sheepish then, handed off to someone else. Of course we never reported anything....

[zkdli]

From what i understand from the information boards on safety that are around swanwick, the number of serious losses of separation have doubled since April. What i find interesting is that the numbers of infringements appears to be double, but from friends flying in the local area, the number of bookings at their flying clubs are down about 20%
This looks like less flights but more infringments what has changed?

MM Flynn is right we do have detection for squawking infringers now and that does help but it has been in for over a year and the numbers are higher now than when it was first in use.

[hum]

Pianorak wrote: The Garmin 296 has the useful "Edit on Map" facility. Having programmed BKP to Top Farm press "Edit on Map" and move magenta line slightly east away from the Panshanger ATZ which also keeps you clear of the Luton and Stansted CTRs. Takes but seconds

Thanks for that - nice feature. Another useful one is to use the 'proximity' tab in the 'points' section. Draws a red circle around a point which can be great for avoiding a Notam...

[Nobodys Desk]

Wow, I am impressed by how many excuses have been used on this thread. Everybody makes mistakes, be it controllers or pilots but to learn from them you have to admit to them. Whether or not a person agrees with the amount of CAS in the UK or how GA traffic is dealt with is immaterial. A pilot is required to carry up to date maps and is required to get an ATC clearance before entering CAS, anything else is just an excuse. Before anyone starts, I have both an ATC & a Pilot's licence, I have infringed CAS (numerous years ago) but I contacted the unit involved, took the harsh words and apologised. Yes I was unfamiliar with the airspace and yes I had other distractions but I was wrong, no excuses. In my mind some people on here need to remember their responsibilities.

[Rod1]

zkdli

Just so I can understand the “big picture”

I assume you work for NATS?

Did you take any part in the creation of the TMZ case for NATS?

Do you have any comments on the LAA assertion that it has been written to “hide the real numbers” etc etc.?

Rod1

[IO540]

Suddenly this supervisor comes on the blower and says "Callsign....do you have a navigation problem"....to which we replied "No", then he came back all condecending and said "you have just infringed an active danger area".

That is quite incredible. This is a radar control environment. London Control are supposed to know about notams etc. IFR traffic in CAS is not responsible for avoiding danger areas and 99% of pilots in that airspace would know nothing about them.

[Roffa]

This is also the internet, caveat emptor.

[zkdli]

Rod 1
Question one - yes
Question two - no
Question three - I am not sure which bit you are referring to but looking at the letter I may be blind but I didn't notice the "hide the numbers bit" - sorry, but I think that from what I have said here you can see that I think that the issue is real and a risk to aircraft in CAS.:)

DLI

[PPRuNe Radar]

That is quite incredible. This is a radar control environment. London Control are supposed to know about notams etc. IFR traffic in CAS is not responsible for avoiding danger areas and 99% of pilots in that airspace would know nothing about them.

Incredible ?? So is that !!

Pilots flying in CAS are NOT exempt from checking NOTAMs and knowing about things which will affect their flight. Nor are they exempt from their responsibilities in avoiding any restrictions or hazards simply because they are expecting ATC to do it all for them.

ATC providing a service to aircraft in CAS will 99.99% of the time point out any hazards which they think the pilot is not going to take account of. But if they have not placed the pilot on a vector to take them in to the hazard airspace yet the aircraft appears to be going to (or actually does) infringe that airspace, whose fault is that, if not the pilots ?

There are only 2 circumstances I can think of where this could possibly occur.

1. The pilot allows his aircraft to leave CAS due to poor navigation (or some other circumstance such as weather) and enters a Danger Area which abuts or is very close to the CAS boundary.

2. The pilot files along a route which is available at the planned time the aircraft will transit the airspace but then delays the flight, taking no account of the fact that the airspace is now not available. This happens not infrequently to aircraft using Conditional Routes which transit Managed Danger Areas (in the North Sea for example). Most of these are caught quickly when telling the pilot his routeing on first contact (and receiving the puzzled silence of an inadequately briefed pilot), and then passing it to him again and explaining why he can't fly on his filed route.

It is hard to think of another example where the filed route goes through a Danger Area, or where ATC would be vectoring you in CAS where there is also a Danger Area ... unless englishal can elaborate :ok:

[IO540]

Pilots flying in CAS are NOT exempt from checking NOTAMs and knowing about things which will affect their flight. Nor are they exempt from their responsibilities in avoiding any restrictions or hazards simply because they are expecting ATC to do it all for them.

I think you could try telling that to the next 100 747 pilots flying into LHR ;)

In a radar control environment, it is just not normal practice to get enroute notams. I normally do it, not so much for enroute stuff but to discover closed runways, landing aids, or even entire airports ;) But the way IFR works around the world, it just isn't normally done.

I am informed that ATC get the notams each morning (or whatever) and plot any affecting their area on some map in the room. That way, when vectoring traffic, they can avoid stuff like airshow TRAs extending up into CAS. The jet pilot in his Tupolev is sure to know nothing of this - regardless of where the responsibility lies.

It's a bit like expecting pilots to read the national AIPs. In the IFR world, this isn't normally done either. You work out the routing, file it, call up the handling agent to sort out any PPR/slot issues, and fly. It is only in the VFR world where the pilot is going to (hopefully) do all this due diligence.

[Rod1]

zkdli

Sorry you did not recognize the quote, here are some more;

“NATS secretive approach to the situation at Stansted makes a mockery of GA partnership forum”

“(the LAA) have written a formal letter of objection to the CAA concerning the mass of misleading and false statements in the consultation document”

All from page 31 of the current LAA mag with the title “NATS: HEAD ON CHALLENGE”

I am sure your corporate communications and PR department can get you a copy.

Rod1

[zkdli]

From where I sit the mockery comes from over 300 pilots flying in to CAS in the last 12 months and everyone thinking that this is somehow NATS fault .:ugh:

I have heard the arguments about how transponders are heavy and expensive and that they can't be fitted to the light aircraft that are operating around the airspace.

i have also heard the arguments that some put forward about NATS not letting pilots in to CAS for VFR transits.

I find it interesting that we were in radio contact with a hot air balloon the other day that had a transponder and recieved a special VFR clearance in the london control zone.:)

AS for NATS being secretive about Stansted - The fact that we are talking about it on all the forums, have consultation on this and that we have been going to the GA community for the last three years over our concerns just makes me hold my hands up in despair.

(I also have a feeling of deja vu with this last set of comments - wasnt this on the last infringements thread?:))

[PPRuNe Radar]

I think you could try telling that to the next 100 747 pilots flying into LHR

Normally they will let their Ops guys sift the information for them and put them in their briefing pack ;) My last few trips up front have all included a Captain's briefing on the NOTAMs for the route, albeit they are those identified to him by his Ops Department.

As the CAA seem keen to prosecute some offending GA pilots for entering CAS (infringing), then maybe we need to let a few unbriefed jet pilots 'infringe' NOTAM'ed restricted or Danger Areas and then ask the CAA to take them to court as an example ;) If only ATC's Duty of Care didn't get in the way before we get to that stage .... damn :)

It seems to me that we have a large dose of double standards in aviation. The poor little guy is lambasted and punished if they don't read NOTAMs, charts, or publications such as the AIP, and subsequently put themselves where they shouldn't be. The big corporate or airline guy does the same thing and it's seen as acceptable that they don't need to bother with such trivia as NOTAMs, since everyone else will do that for them, won't they ?

Personally, I have a much more sympathetic ear when discussing an infringement with a GA guy who has tried his best but has been caught out by other circumstances such as weather, single pilot high workload ops, etc, compared to an airline or IFR pilot who doesn't seem to give a toss or even know what you are talking about. The latter should have a much higher standard of preparation and airmanship, based on their 'professional' status, level of training, experience, and probable resources. But every case on it's merits.

PS Maybe some of the European airline and GA operators need to move to the US system where a Flight Dispatcher 'nannies' them all the way through the flight regarding routeings, fuel, NOTAMs, etc. Some of the current ones certainly don't seem to have the knowledge to be out on their own without some adult supervision :p

[scooter boy]

"Are you going to infringe CAS tomorrow?":uhoh:

"Nah - not much of that 'round these parts - I'm more likely to hit a seagull";)

SB

[Jumbo Driver]

In a radar control environment, it is just not normal practice to get enroute notams.

Not sure I agree with that, IO540 ...

Notams should be available for all commercial flights to cover departure, en-route, arrival and diversion - albeit possibly highlighted or filtered by company or handling agent Ops - but they should be available and included in the briefing paperwork.

I certainly wouldn't want to despatch on an international flight without relevant Notams. It is, after all, the Commander's legal responsibility to both check and comply with Notams - although of course ATC will generally do their best to protect us if we stray ...


JD
:)

[LH2]

An interesting thread.

What so far nobody has answered authoritatively, is why the UK has such a different approach to the rest of Western Europe when it comes to GA use of controlled airspace.

I know a number of opinions (but with no backing data) have been put forward, mostly alleging higher traffic density, but even if that is the case, surely you would then go and hire more controllers to deal with that? I struggle to believe that such a comparatively expensive place to fly can have such an appalling level of service.

I would be most appreciative if anyone can point me to any relevant studies explaining the reasons for those differences (please note, as for mere opinions, I think I've heard most of them already).

[Roffa]

zkdli, I don't think many (any?) of the alphabet organisations will accept that infringements are actually a significant issue until it's all too late and has ended in tears.

The safeguards were there, shame they were actively opposed/ignored.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I know a number of opinions (but with no backing data) have been put forward, mostly alleging higher traffic density, but even if that is the case, surely you would then go and hire more controllers to deal with that? I struggle to believe that such a comparatively expensive place to fly can have such an appalling level of service.
I'm sure you know the answer to that one really:

"Hiring more controllers costs money. Who is going to want to pay them? - not the GA pilots wanting transits, and why should anyone else?"

[bjornhall]

"Hiring more controllers costs money. Who is going to want to pay them? - not the GA pilots wanting transits, and why should anyone else?"

And the answer to that is: The GA pilots do not want transits. They only want to fly in that airspace, and they would be just as happy were it uncontrolled. Since it is the heavy iron who needs the airspace to be controlled, they pay for the service. But they only pay for the service; they didn't buy the airspace.

[WorkingHard]

Now now Bjonhall you have a fundamental error there. THEY DO OWN IT or so it seems at times! I have always thought that if the CAT wanted such restrictions on airspace (for safety reasons of course) then they should be obliged to pay a rent on the volume of airspace required. I wonder how soon it would start shrinking then!!!

[chrisN]

The government believes in “the polluter pays”.

The big airlines demand big chunks of controlled airspace. Why? Well in about 1975 at a CACAAC meeting (forerunner of NATMAC), I heard the CAA people remind everyone that their prime remit was the protection of the fare-paying passenger. By then, airspace had effectively gone from being free to all to being nationalised so that the Government could do what they want with it.

So if the polluter pays, who should pay for the additional personnel - air traffic controllers - to allow access by GA? Why NATS, of course. But that would increase their costs, which would either affect profits returned to shareholders, or be passed on to their customers – those they charge for CAS services, mainly the big airlines.

And who are the shareholders? According to NATS web site, that would be “the Airline Group, BAA and DfT”.

So that’s why the polluter, in this instance , does not pay.

As we have seen, when politicians make the rules, they are different for them (and by extension their pet projects) than for everybody else. NATS just gets run as the politicians wish. Fare-paying passengers wield lots of votes. GA does not. So GA can get st****d as far as the powers that be are concerned.

Chris N.

[LH2]

I'm sure you know the answer to that one really:

Unfortunately I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I had of course heard before the speculative argument you put forward, but never seen any proof such as in the form of a policy document or similar. And it still doesn't explain why this issue is largely unique to the UK amongst Western European countries.

[Roffa]

And it still doesn't explain why this issue is largely unique to the UK amongst Western European countries.

How many other Western European countries have a privatised 'national' ANSP?

[IO540]

A number of things are different in the UK compared to other European countries.

NATS is a private company, for a start. This puts a totally different slant on how services will be funded, etc. Most (all?) countries in Europe have a national ATC service which they maintain well, for national security reasons if not others, and this is why you find when you fly into France suddenly everything changes; you get a radar service everywhere, every unit you call up has your flight plan to hand, even small airport towers have a radar data display, etc.

The UK implements a near watertight division between VFR and IFR/CAS services. The latter gets the usual seamless control from London Control, etc, while all other traffic is kept separate and gets a FIS (which does not provide a radar service so few pilots call it up) or the occassional radar service from a LARS unit. LC will absolutely not provide any service to VFR traffic, or IFR traffic which is below their CAS layer (loosely speaking below FL080 or so).

As suggested above, this results in a situation where you have absolute control and right next to it you have airspace (which quite often is shaped into a bottleneck - even better for PPL-level navigation skills as trained in the UK ;) ) in which you have traffic which is not only uncontrolled but also totally unknown, without transponders in most cases and often without radio. With the typical airport CAS, it takes just a few minutes at say 100kt to enter the CAS and end up overhead the said airport and bring operations to a halt.

Most if not all of the IFR/OCAS airspace is Class A; not for any good reason but it has been that way for a long time. It should really be Class B or C. Class A of course prohibits VFR implicitly.

The UK has the advantages of lots of Class G and the ability to fly IFR in it, even non-radio i.e. without ATC clearance or any flight plan. One can fly all over the UK in Class G. Of course this works only if the pilot can actually navigate; many cannot and they bust bits of CAS. But nothing can be done about this because the training is so poor and refuses to embrace modern navigation technology.

The extensive Class G, with its relative lack of a useful service, works well with the UK model of "user pays" because GA (below 2000kg) does not pay so it doesn't "deserve" a service so it does not get one. This incidentally is why the IMC Rating works so well in the UK - it is a "DIY flight in IMC, with no service" kind of thing.

Also, UK GA has been historically quite effective in restraining the growth of CAS. This has been achieved successfully no doubt due to the fact that no ATC service needs to be delivered OCAS ;)