PDA

View Full Version : Infringements


mary meagher
25th Nov 2009, 12:14
On looking through the latest list of "occurrences" concerning aircraft of 5700kg and below from the CAA, covering in the UK only the five weeks from Sept. 14 to Oct. 21, 2009, I counted a total of 70 infringements: 61 fixed wing, 9 rotary.

Would anyone care to comment?

flybymike
25th Nov 2009, 12:20
Sounds about average. Some would say that by getting rid of controlled airspace we could get rid of all the infringements.

gpn01
25th Nov 2009, 12:21
Like many other statistics, it looks like they're getting better at recording incidents. I'm sure with Mode-S that we'll see a further increase in infringements. Doesn't mean that there's an increase in actual infringements - simply an increase in the number being reported. :-(

robin
25th Nov 2009, 13:01
..and as each regional airport operator is looking to get Class D or better around it there is a drive to report infringements, even in the open FIR.

Look at NIA's application and justification, and if they get it, then others with more movements will start doing the same willy-waggling approach.

ab33t
25th Nov 2009, 13:32
Looking back at stats that seems about right , but then again how accurate has the reports/recordings of infringements been in the past. I did read with the advent of GPS these numbers have come down

Captain Stable
25th Nov 2009, 14:36
there is a drive to report infringements, even in the open FIR. :confused: :confused:

And do you really, really think that reporting infringements is "willy waggling"?

That's a sad indictment of an approach to safety. Talk to any APP controller about the problems that infringements give them and you may understand the problem. In fact, EVERY pilot should at some time or other see what happens at their local LARS provider. They love having people come and see what goes on so we can understand their problems, plus it all helps for better understanding and therefore better safety levels.

I heard one guy today being warned off the LHR zone. His answer? "We're right on the line according to my GPS". :rolleyes:

It was 45 kt winds at 2000'. Why fly that close to the line in conditions like that, let alone in calmer conditions? The arrogance and stupidity defy belief. Give yourself a margin of safety to allow for errors - in your flying, in the GPS equipment, in the data base, in navigation - just give yourself a margin for error.

IO540
25th Nov 2009, 14:41
I heard one guy today being warned off the LHR zone. His answer? "We're right on the line according to my GPS"Maybe that is not the very best example, because prob99.99 he was in the right.

At say 20-30nm from the radar head, a GPS will be about 100x more accurate.

OCAS is OCAS.

I think the willy waving reference was re airports that want Class D to cover the one 737 per day.

Actually I have no problem with CAS - provided one gets a transit when one asks for it. Which is not the case, anywhere in Europe.

VictorGolf
25th Nov 2009, 14:58
What worries me is that of 13 of the infringements were in the Stansted zone and 9 of them were in the new TMZ. I just hope this isn't yet more pressure from NATS/CAA/whoever to grab more Contolled airspace. Could I suggest that all VFR flyers in this area squawk 0013 or talk to Farnborough if they have the kit otherwise the TMZ will expand further.

ozbeck
25th Nov 2009, 15:28
How do you get hold of the Occurance List please?

maxred
25th Nov 2009, 15:36
Ozbeck - the full repsorts or the GASIL list?

Captain Stable
25th Nov 2009, 16:31
At say 20-30nm from the radar head, a GPS will be about 100x more accurate.
You're thinking old technology. Modern units (of which this is one) use multiple radar heads all feeding the same computer system. Furthermore, the incident happened about 5 miles from the airfield which is home to this LARS unit.

The guy's response was very stroppy and rude - totally unnecessary IMHO.

ozbeck
25th Nov 2009, 17:29
maxred

I don't know what GASIL stands for (duhh! can't get the staff etc.) - but GA airspace infringements with details if possible, so that I can attempt not to emulate them. Doesn't even have to be up to date.

I looked on the CAA website but could only find occurance submission forms etc. There is so much information on there it is sometimes hard to get what you are after.

IO540
25th Nov 2009, 17:46
You're thinking old technology. Modern units (of which this is one) use multiple radar heads all feeding the same computer system. Furthermore, the incident happened about 5 miles from the airfield which is home to this LARS unit.Radar itself has not changed much in many years. What has really changed is computer processing of the data. At 5nm it should be pretty good but still not as accurate as a GPS.

The guy's response was very stroppy and rude - totally unnecessary IMHO.I wouldn't have made that comment myself :) Arguing with ATC is totally pointless (except possibly in Spain) and is only going to get their backs up.

coldair
25th Nov 2009, 19:26
A link to latest list of "occurrences" would be most welcome.

mary meagher
25th Nov 2009, 20:05
A nice little booklet comes in my post, titled SAFETY DATA OCCURRENCE LISTING. Apparently if you have title to an aircraft, this is automatic, and very educational, I read it cover to cover. And hope never to appear in it.

At the bottom of the page, for Queries and Reporting:
Contact Safety Data, Civil Aviation Authority, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0YR

email: [email protected] fax 01293 573972 tel: 01293 573220

zkdli
26th Nov 2009, 21:49
IO540
Yes you may be right that the pilot was on the line on the map. But the point still is valid, a low performance aircraft ( and I include anything that is a light twin or single engine piston in that ) which is operating with those tolerances in the weather conditions stated could very easily enter the airspace before remedial action could be taken. Then were would the pilot be? Is it really that important to excercise your right to fly on the line of CAS when there is no need in poor weather conditions?
If the pilot was a professional or very experienced PPL what example does it set for less experienced pilots?

Roffa
26th Nov 2009, 21:53
Radar itself has not changed much in many years. What has really changed is computer processing of the data. At 5nm it should be pretty good but still not as accurate as a GPS.


The radar is accurate enough and in TC its accuracy will be further enhanced fairly soon when all the control positions make use of multi radar tracking.

Fuji Abound
26th Nov 2009, 22:25
What worries me is that of 13 of the infringements were in the Stansted zone and 9 of them were in the new TMZ.


Stansted rarely gives clearances. The reason they dont is they are under staffed. This creates unnecessary frustration which in part results in unacceptable zone infringements albeit some of these could be avoided if NATS staffed the zone properly.

It use to be possible to report failures to give zone transits - the sooner the CAA encourages GA to file reports and to require zones to file refusals
together with the grounds for refusal the more likley we are too know how much of a contribution to zone infrigments this represents.

flybymike
26th Nov 2009, 23:42
I thought the CAA still actively encouraged reporting of refused transits?
Seems only fair that if infringements are to be reported then so should refusals. Sauce for the goose etc.

IO540
27th Nov 2009, 03:50
Yes you may be right that the pilot was on the line on the map. But the point still is valid, a low performance aircraft ( and I include anything that is a light twin or single engine piston in that ) which is operating with those tolerances in the weather conditions stated could very easily enter the airspace before remedial action could be taken. Then were would the pilot be? Is it really that important to excercise your right to fly on the line of CAS when there is no need in poor weather conditions?
If the pilot was a professional or very experienced PPL what example does it set for less experienced pilots?I would agree that a pilot who can fly accurately (which means a GPS) right on the line is equally capable of doing so a mile out, so flying right on the line is pointless and probably just gets the CAS owner nervous.

But it is possible that you are unaware of just how accurately one can fly today, in a modern IFR plane. I could fly a 900nm route, both ways, and the GPS tracks will be maybe 10m apart. That track log is from a GPS that receives EGNOS so its accuracy is a lot better than 10m. Obviously this is on autopilot.

On a number of occassions I've been warned of being in CAS when I was a couple of miles out, and either the controller was bluffing or his radar was well out. A radar can be pretty good in distance but azimuth accuracy is much harder. I am thinking of Shawbury talking about Birmingham airspace so 30-40nm. I verified the distance to CAS with the ILS DME of the airport too. Plus the 3 GPSs.

BEagle
27th Nov 2009, 07:41
I heard one guy today being warned off the LHR zone. His answer? "We're right on the line according to my GPS".

Are you sure he didn't mean he was exactly on his pre-planned GPS track rather than on the boundary line?

Modern GPS is reliable and accurate. You'll be happy to learn that the CAA are finally beginning to accept that fact! The astrolabe and quadrant-staff dinosaurs are beginning to be put out to pasture.

Can anyone tell me what is required for a GPS to be 'IFR-approved'? Does that simply mean that it may be used for approved GPS approach procedures? If so, it is a misleading description - navigating above 8/8 cloud in VMC with a 'non-IFR' GPS is surely legal, so why not in IMC outside CAS?

More and more people will prefer to navigate purely by GPS, particularly given the poor reliability of many Club a/c avionics boxes and the forthcoing decomissioning of VORs and NDBs.

Map reading, so beloved of Mr GASIL, is a dubious way of navigating in marginal-yet-legal VFR - a modern GPS of any description is far more accurate and will, if used correctly, be much better at keeping GA pilots from CAS infringements than the Mk 1 eyeball.

Cows getting bigger
27th Nov 2009, 07:51
IO540 make an interesting point. If one individual thinks he is on a particular side of a line using GPS and another thinks he is on the other side of the same line using radar, you still have a problem at the time of the perceived infringement.

I don't have an answer to the problem apart from there probably needs to be some form of buffer. ISTR that controllers try to provide some form of lateral buffer inside CAS. Maybe GA pilots should aim to do the same outside of CAS instead of being 'clever' and getting as close as possible to the line (whichever line that is).

IO540
27th Nov 2009, 08:06
Can anyone tell me what is required for a GPS to be 'IFR-approved'? I think one would start by looking up TSO C129 etc. This lays down the requirements for functionality, sat failure announciation, RAIM, etc.

Does that simply mean that it may be used for approved GPS approach procedures? If so, it is a misleading description - navigating above 8/8 cloud in VMC with a 'non-IFR' GPS is surely legal, so why not in IMC outside CAS? An IFR approved GPS is necessary for flying GPS approaches, but it is not all that is necessary for such an approval. The installation has to comply with AC20-138A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/8a2ae2491c85226f86256e35004c638b/$FILE/AC20-138A.pdf) (or the usual paraphrased EASA ripoff of that :) if Euro-reg). And you need a POH supplement saying so.

For private enroute flight, the regs (UK/Europe) do not prescribe equipment to be USED. They merely prescribe equipment to be CARRIED. So you can navigate above an overcast with any method you like, legally. (The regs don't even prescribe equipment to be USED for an APPROACH, which is quite funny, but I think that while most people fly an NOB approach using a GPS, most people would actually fly in ILS with an ILS receiver).

It is only in BRNAV airspace (IFR, CAS, FL095 plus) that the aircraft must comply with BRNAV which in the GA context means only an IFR GPS, which then de facto becomes mandatory! (Airliners comply with this by having INS, with multiple sensors like DME/DME or, on the really new ones, GPS). In practice, in Europe, BRNAV means you need an IR to be there in the first place.

So, for enroute IMC flight, or any other enroute flight for that matter, below FL095, OCAS, any old GPS is 100% legal.

fisbangwollop
27th Nov 2009, 08:20
In an attempt to reduce airspace infringements back in 2008 "Scottish Information" introduced an FIR squawk of 7401. The basis for this was although traffic working Scottish Information will only recieve a non radar "Basic Service" any other radar unit whom see's the Squawk will be aware that traffic is working "Scottish Info" and should it appear that the aircraft is tracking towards their piece of controlled airspace and about to infringe will advise Scottish to transfer the aircraft to their frequency so as to avert any possible infringement. The full details can ben seen in AIC 5/2008but I will highlite the bullet points here...
SCOTTISH FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE - INTRODUCTION OF SSR CODE 7401

3 ATC Procedure for dealing with potential/actual airspace incursion

3.1 When a radar controller observes an aircraft displaying a 7401 code, under circumstances where an airspace violation is, or is

about to be, occurring, he/she may contact Scottish Information to attempt to identify the aircraft and arrange for it to be transferred to

his/her frequency, if necessary.

4 Scottish Information Action

4.1 Under such circumstances the Scottish Flight Information Service Officer (FISO), acting on the instructions of the relevant ATC

controller, will assist in the identification and transfer of the aircraft. The RTF procedure to be used by the FISO will take the following

or similar form:

‘(aircraft callsign) instruction from (ATC unit) squawk ident’

followed by:

‘(aircraft callsign) at (ATC unit) request contact (ATC unit and frequency) immediately’

4.2 When the ATC controller has resolved the situation the aircraft may return to the Scottish Information frequency and, if an SSR

code change has been made, may again be requested to squawk SSR code 7401.

Note: It should be noted that this instruction only applies to aircraft receiving a Flight Information Service from the FISO at Scottish

Information on frequency 119.875 MHz. Aircraft receiving FIS from Scottish ACC on 127.275 MHz, 124.500 MHz or 129.225 MHz

should squawk 7000 or any code designated by the Air Traffic Controller whom may use his/her radar-derived information to

assist his/her task.

In general this has worked well but sadly in the last few months a total of 5 infringements have occured with aircraft busting the Aberdeen CTA/CTZ whilst working Scottish Info. It appears at times Aberdeen have not reacted in accordance with the AIC until the said aircraft had busted their airspace. At the end of the day it is the pilots responsibility to avoid but I feel also the onus is also on ATC to make every effort to stop these infringements before they happen. I know for those of us that operate the FIR sector at Scottish we make every effort possible to avert any infringement but being a non radar sector we have to totally trust and rely on accurate postion reporting from the pilots and when they report over position "A" they are indeed overhead and not 5 miles west!! :cool:

Roffa
27th Nov 2009, 09:32
Fuji,

Stansted rarely gives clearances. The reason they dont is they are under staffed.

The first statement I doubt is accurate, the second statement I know is 100% inaccurate.

You really shouldn't make such confident assertions when they just demonstrate your complete ignorance of the facts. Makes one question the veracity of everything else you write.

Mark1234
27th Nov 2009, 10:15
I don't have an answer to the problem apart from there probably needs to be some form of buffer. ISTR that controllers try to provide some form of lateral buffer inside CAS. Maybe GA pilots should aim to do the same outside of CAS instead of being 'clever' and getting as close as possible to the line (whichever line that is).

Something like this (I know it's aus, not the UK, but it seems, er, sensible? good airmanship, something like that?)


Avoiding Controlled Airspace

The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace,
or to the VFR in Class E airspace, must apply appropriate toler‐
ances to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or re‐
stricted areas, are not infringed.
In calculating whether an intended flight path may infringe con‐
trolled airspace, the following navigational tolerances must be ap‐
plied to the intended flight path depending on method of navigation
used. These tolerances may be rounded up to the nearest half de‐
gree for practical purposes:

NDB ±6.9°
VOR/TACAN ±5.2°
DR ±12°
Note: For DR tracking ±9 o
may be used where initial track
guidance has been provided by NDB, VOR or TACAN and there is
no subsequent change in track.

VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT)
0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night)
2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night)
5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night)

Apologies for the formatting..

mm_flynn
27th Nov 2009, 14:01
Something like this (I know it's aus, not the UK, but it seems, er, sensible? good airmanship, something like that?)

VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT)
0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night)
2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night)
5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night)

Apologies for the formatting..

Which for my home field (embedded in the LTMA as it is) would mean only GPS equipped helis able to track exactly to the runway centre along a 1 1/2 mile corridor with CAS 2 miles to either side and the front) could use the field at night! It is challenging enough to operate several aircraft in a circuit and keep them all within 1 mile of the centre of the airport (i.e. 1 mile away from CAS).

In general keeping a bit of separation is a good idea, however, there are a number of locations in the South where there are quite narrow gaps. Coming around Biggin in IMC is classic, you have the choice of staying with Farnborough and threading a very thin slot or going to Biggin through their ATZ (and hence a much bigger slot), but having no Radar Service.

Fuji Abound
27th Nov 2009, 14:59
The first statement I doubt is accurate, the second statement I know is 100% inaccurate.

You really shouldn't make such confident assertions when they just demonstrate your complete ignorance of the facts. Makes one question the veracity of everything else you write.

Roffa

Well have it your own way if you like.

However my asserions are based on a good discussion we had on this topic on the darker side to which a number of ATCOs contributed - or at least they claimed they were ATCOs and agreed with the point I made. Of course the discussion could have been an invention of my imagination or those that claimed to be ATCOs could be an invention of their own imagination. :)

Anyway as to the point in hand - I can barely recall being refused a SVFR transit of Heathrow and I go that way often. I can barely recall being granted a transit of Stansted - I also go that way often. Perhaps I am dreaming the clearances and the refusals. Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted?

Now the claim is often made that of course Stansted is oh so very busy. Busier than Heathrow - I dont think so. The claim is also made the airspace is very complicated. More complicated that a Burnham transit directly underneath the inbound traffic while having to co-ordinate with Northolt departures and arrivals - I also dont think so.

The truth of the matter as we discussed elsewhere is Stansted is busier and its integration with Essex does make it a more complicated area to control. However unlike Heathrow there is no spare staffing capacity. There are no controllers tasked to deal with VFR transits and the controllers dealing with inbound CAT havent got the capacity to deal with GA. It is not their fault and I am not blaming them - so do carm down dear.

The reality is that NATS has an obligation to allow transits of Stansted and they are failing to meet their obligation because they have not tasked staff to deal with requests. Obviously they dont want to because it adds to their cost, but their are many things we dont want to do.

Do you have any idea how far busier areas of airspace in the States readily give transits to crossing traffic?

In short unless I have been completely mislead by the comments of other ATCOs and am suffering complete dillusion in which case please forgive me my original comments stand!! :}:}

In seriousness sarcasm aside I am very happy to be corrected if I have been mislead by others and if you consider that by allocating staff to handle VFR transits such transits would still prove impossible.

maxred
27th Nov 2009, 15:09
Happened to me with Glasgow Control Zone. I was checking my GPS - right up the line- when call came from another airfield whom I was talking with to contact Glasgow App. I tried, they ignored me, however called up the sup at Glasgow on landing and was told I had infringed. Apologised immediately, he accepted, and then I became a report. I re ran the GPS unit, and my track was very close, however, I felt I was outside, they reported an infringement
It was my fault and I learnt not to go to close without speaking to the CTZ:uhoh:

IO540
27th Nov 2009, 15:26
This sort of thing is why I always run a GPS track when I fly anywhere. The track is kept for some months in the Garmin 496, till the next flight (say a week later) if I am running Memory Map (UK VFR flights), and indefinitely if I am running Oziexplorer (all foreign flights).

If one was picked up for a falsely alleged bust, the only data they will have is a radar track, which could be out a fair bit, or intermittent, and you will need your super accurate GPS track log to get yourself off the hook.

However my guess is that the CAA does not follow up marginal busts - they are not stupid and they know that the pilot probably has a GPS track which in a marginal case any half good lawyer will be able to show is far more accurate than radar. The lists of CAA prosecutions (on their website) make it obvious that most busts are not followed up. Just as well - I did a little one last year myself (phoned up and apologised) :)

robin
27th Nov 2009, 15:31
Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted?


I don't think I've ever had a refusal from Stansted. That's probably because all I've ever had is a 'standby' from them.....:rolleyes:

maxred
27th Nov 2009, 15:43
Yep, another interesting point. I have long argued that NATS and the CAA should interogate the data received on infringements. Maybe they do, I am not sure. If it was a transparent process where pilot and interogater could discuss the circumstances that led to the infringement, then perhaps the situation would get better. I always attempt to fly and learn and therefore take it quite hard if I 'screw' up and bust airspace.
Maybe one large controlled area for all flights:confused:is the answer to busts. All pilots whether VFR/IFR talk to someone. This would go down well I am sure:=As an aside, I would like to view the situation of infringements in say the US. Do they have more or less? Can anything constructive in this area be learned from others.

Cobalt
27th Nov 2009, 16:33
VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT)
0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night)
2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night)
5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night)

This is for visual navigation, and it makes sense en-route to apply higher tolerances the higher you are, and at night.

Where is the list for GPS? Or is that yet another regulator that doesn't think it should be used?

zkdli
27th Nov 2009, 16:51
Maxred - A bit worrying "I always attempt to fly and learn and therefore take it quite hard if I 'screw' up and bust airspace." How many times then?:)

Zorax
27th Nov 2009, 18:21
Maxred

I have to agree with Zkdli, it's very worrying that you "attempt" to avoid controlled airspace. Flying and learning by your mistakes after you've infringed is really not the way to do it. I'm sure the sight of a fully laden B737 in your 12 o'clock would make you wish that your "learning" had taken place a little earlier - on the ground perhaps?

Crash one
27th Nov 2009, 19:46
Last two posts grammatical nit picking as usual.
I too attempt to learn, all the time. When I stop learning I think I will be starting to cool down!!!

Roffa
27th Nov 2009, 21:16
Fuji,

Having read the below I don't think it's I that has to carm (sic) down.

My original comments stand.

Roffa

Well have it your own way if you like.

However my asserions are based on a good discussion we had on this topic on the darker side to which a number of ATCOs contributed - or at least they claimed they were ATCOs and agreed with the point I made. Of course the discussion could have been an invention of my imagination or those that claimed to be ATCOs could be an invention of their own imagination.

Anyway as to the point in hand - I can barely recall being refused a SVFR transit of Heathrow and I go that way often. I can barely recall being granted a transit of Stansted - I also go that way often. Perhaps I am dreaming the clearances and the refusals. Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted?

Now the claim is often made that of course Stansted is oh so very busy. Busier than Heathrow - I dont think so. The claim is also made the airspace is very complicated. More complicated that a Burnham transit directly underneath the inbound traffic while having to co-ordinate with Northolt departures and arrivals - I also dont think so.

The truth of the matter as we discussed elsewhere is Stansted is busier and its integration with Essex does make it a more complicated area to control. However unlike Heathrow there is no spare staffing capacity. There are no controllers tasked to deal with VFR transits and the controllers dealing with inbound CAT havent got the capacity to deal with GA. It is not their fault and I am not blaming them - so do carm down dear.

The reality is that NATS has an obligation to allow transits of Stansted and they are failing to meet their obligation because they have not tasked staff to deal with requests. Obviously they dont want to because it adds to their cost, but their are many things we dont want to do.

Do you have any idea how far busier areas of airspace in the States readily give transits to crossing traffic?

In short unless I have been completely mislead by the comments of other ATCOs and am suffering complete dillusion in which case please forgive me my original comments stand!!

In seriousness sarcasm aside I am very happy to be corrected if I have been mislead by others and if you consider that by allocating staff to handle VFR transits such transits would still prove impossible.

Fuji Abound
27th Nov 2009, 22:03
Fair enough - as I said I knew you would want it your own way hence my rather tongue in cheek post.

Its a shame that you couldnt come up with anything more positive by way of explanation why there are repetitive posts about Stansteds inability to provide transits (just read the post above by another forumite as one of very very many examples) and why it is Heathrow is able to provide SVFR transits without issue.

Anyway what do I care - I have recently had a long chat with the responsible authority who were candid enough to tell me they recognise their is a real problem and already have the matter under investigation. I have been asked to provide them with every occasion I have been refused a transit and have already done so. I have also been ask to maintain a record of future refusals. :)

I am going to start a seperate thread so the extent of the problem may become evident.

Best Wishes.