ATCO Training - Dealing with infringements

[betterfromabove]

Hi

Can anyone tell me how ATCO's are taught to deal with infringements during their training, especially of the GA kind?

I've been looking for the NATS ATCO syllabus among the CAP's but can't quite find it. Is there a publically available version somewhere?

Now that the PPL training for ATCO's is long gone, in the UK at least, is there any connection anymore with the "pilot perspective" during training or is it fully ATC simulators that are now used?

Any countries still offering flight training or experience of any kind to controllers?

Many thanks
BFA

[niknak]

Its quite an expansive topic as it can involve controlled airspace (temporary and permanent), uncotrolled airspace (infringement of ATZs) and Danger Areas.
During practical training you'll be taught how deal with a general scenario, but as you'll find when you are validated and although some infringements have a recurring theme dependent upon where you are, each situation has to be dealt with tactically on the day. The London TMA is a prime example.

As you get more experience in a radar or aerodrome environment, you'll hopefully become more adept at spotting the potential infringements before they occur, at least that gives you a fighting chance of doing something to help aircraft you are talking to even if the miscreant isn't in contact with you.

Meanwhile, a bit of bedtime reading for you ;) :

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf

[Bamboozle Woozle]

Evening niknak - hows things?

Better from above;
I can only give you an idea from the NATS training perspective, and at the college very little was taught. I think during my Approach Radar course we only had one simulated "unauthorised infringement of controlled airspace", so it wasn't really something that any of us thought much about.

The real world however is a very different story....infringements are daily occurrences and happen for all sorts of reasons - unfamiliarity with the airspace, weather, lost, incorrect or no maps (following the GPS is a favourite - although what type of gps is questionable sometimes, especially when they are following roads!!!) and you just have to deal with them the best you can. There is no specific laid down training for dealing with the infringing aircraft (just get it out as expeditiously as possible!!!), but there are separation minima that you have to achieve with other aircraft that you may be working against said infringement, this can be found in the MATS pt 1 (cap493)

Hope that this helps:ok:

[betterfromabove]

I've been going through CAP493 (MATS1) and there's something not quite clear.

I can see en-route IFR and arr/dep separation standards covered in Chapter 3, but apart from some mention of Mode C transponding a/c and vertical separation in Chapter 5, I can't figure out yet what are the criteria within a Control Zone (e.g. a classic UK Class D or Class A in case of Heathrow) for separation between IFR and VFR traffic?

Would these criteria be particular to the Control Zone concerned, i.e. specified in the relevant MATS2?

Thanks
BFA

[reportyourlevel]

I can see en-route IFR and arr/dep separation standards covered in Chapter 3, but apart from some mention of Mode C transponding a/c and vertical separation in Chapter 5, I can't figure out yet what are the criteria within a Control Zone (e.g. a classic UK Class D or Class A in case of Heathrow) for separation between IFR and VFR traffic?

Read Section 1 Chapter 2 Page 1 - "Classification of Airspace" and all should be explained.

[betterfromabove]

Reportyourlevel - does "maintain separation" in that context mean that of standard en-route IFR criteria or the arr/dep criteria?

I'm just trying to get my head round the 4D "bubble" that ATCO's are trying to maintain around the infringing VFR aircraft.

I realise in force majeure, it may be "whatever works" in getting the GA out of the zone or CT out of its way.

I seem to remember hearing some horizantal and vertical figures from a Heathrow controller at a CAA talk, but can't find a clear reference.

Thanks
BFA

[reportyourlevel]

I didn't twig you meant to separate from an infringer, I assumed you meant known traffic. For known traffic, there would be no VFR in class A and in class D there is no IFR/VFR separation standard, traffic information is sufficient.

In the case of an infringer, you're need 5nm miles separation on the situation display or 5000 feet vertical from the mode C. In the case of unverified mode C, there is the additional requirement that the returns must not merge.

The other relevant point is that you don't necessarily know what flight rules the infringer is operating under - they're probably not talking to you!

[reportyourlevel]

Just to clarify that, the 5000 feet comes from Section 1 Chapter 5 Page 10. The 5nm comes from Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 13, and is therefore specified in the MATS Pt 2. In our case, we can use 3nm between identified targets (under certain conditions) but must increase to 5nm if one of the targets is not identified. This may well be different at different units.

[betterfromabove]

Reportyourlevel - many thanks for the very clear reply! Can tell you're an ATCO ;-)

Yes, it's the tactical criteria indeed I was wanting to understand and must have been quoted by the Heathrow controller. Remember at the time thinking that is quite a substantial vertical "cylinder" of airspace compared to the horizontal separation.

Is that due to the potential doubts there may be on height information? QNH being used?

That must effectively mean, for all UK CZ's, even for a Mode C ALT transponding infringer, that it's a 5nm vertical exclusion zone that reaches from the surface up to the roof of the CZ, right?

[betterfromabove]

Presumably any SVFR traffic in Class A, say in LHR's zone, is therefore considered as IFR, unless on a specified SVFR route (e.g. heli-lanes)?

I'm thinking about cleared SVFR on non-official routings, such as in LHR's zone, a GA routing BUR-Ascot, an overhead PFL at Denham, or photo-shoots around the zone.

A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?

Sorry for picky questions!

[betterfromabove]

RYL - Hope I got the latest version of MATS1, but Sec1 Ch3 P13 in the July 2009 edition talks about wake turbulence separation....is that right? That's intriguing if true!

So, it looks like 5nm is the prime criteria for unknown traffic in a CZ with a roof less than 5000' QNH? Is that an over-simplification?

[reportyourlevel]

Is that due to the potential doubts there may be on height information? QNH being used?


The mode C is always encoded using 1013 as the datum, regardless of the pressure set on the altimeter so that isn't a factor. There is still the possibility of an error so the level must be verified by the controller. Further to this, there are certain squawk codes which are "deemed verified", which just means that you can trust that the controller working the traffic has already made sure the level is within tolerance. In this case, you can use the 5000 feet which allows for the unpredictable nature of the flight.

If the aircraft is wearing a conspicuity squawk (not verified), the level hasn't been checked and may not be right. In this case you can use 5000 feet, but must not let the returns touch or merge - this ensures that even if the mode C is vastly wrong there won't (or at least shouldn't!) be a collision.

That must effectively mean, for all UK CZ's, even for a Mode C ALT transponding infringer, that it's a 5nm vertical exclusion zone that reaches from the surface up to the roof of the CZ, right?

Remember though that you need 5nm OR 5000 feet, so if your infringer is 5nm or more from your other traffic you don't need any vertical.

[reportyourlevel]

Sorry, that reference should be page 14, it's just after the wake turbulence stuff. The 5000 feet is only for unknown traffic, for known traffic you can use 1000' vertical.

For ATS surveillance system (we used to be able to call that radar) separation between known traffic this will be specified in the MATS Part 2. In our case it is 3nm between identified targets or 5nm otherwise (note that unidentified and unknown are not the same - confusingly!).

Special VFR is done differently at different units and I can't comment on Heathrow (I don't work anywhere near). At my unit we can use "deemed separations" where SVFR aircraft operating in certain areas under certain conditions are separated from IFR aircraft operating in other areas. Most units will have some sort of "deemer" like this I would think.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

betterfromabove.... you need to visit an ATC radar unit and see what goes on!

<<A PA28 cleared to route BUR-Ascot not above 1000'QNH cannot be meeting those 5nm/5000' criteria surely? Or do these criteria only apply to unknown traffic? So what would apply in this case of the PA28?>>

Why should it need to? All SVFR traffic will be identified and ATC will provide standard separation (1000ft vertical or 3nm horizontal) between it and IFR or other SVFR traffic.

During my time at Heathrow I must have seen hundreds of zone infringers (curse them!). We did our best to maintain horizontal separation and provide information to other pilots. If they saw the infringer they could provide their own separation, which could be considerably less than that provided by ATC.

[BrATCO]

Any countries still offering flight training or experience of any kind to controllers?

DSNA/France still does.

Offers a (mandatory) PPL between 1st and 2nd year of initial training.

[betterfromabove]

Guys

Thank you all for your comments. As often appears the case with aviation, there appear to be rules, then sub-rules and then pragmatic further tweaking to allow things to function!

So, as I understand it, it's essentially 5nm OR 5000' in the worst of cases, but may be reduced in steps to a situation of (IFR) pilot-assured visual maintenance of separation in the best of cases.

I should explain my interest in the subject....aside from being a PPL, am currently working on technology in the infringement reduction area.

Have been trying to arrange a visit to an ATC unit through some contacts, as would be extremely useful to see if from the ATCO's perspective. Aside from a flying club-led visit, is there any other way to organise this?

I'm in the London area, so would equally be happy to tag along with any clubs visiting a facility in the coming months.

Many thanks again
BFA

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

One way of reducing infringements would be better training of pilots. OK, infringments don't happen every day but those that do usually reveal exceptional stupidity on the part of the pilot. Like the one who took off from Denham to fly to Elstree but set his gyro 180 degrees out and ended up half way to White Waltham, for example.

It's not always PPLs.. One evening a light twin flew the airways system from France inbound to Elstree. A few miles before Biggin Hill he descended out of Controlled Airspace and then flew direct to Elstree, through the London Control Zone. He had descended to around 2300 ft to get below the TMA but had not taken account of the London Control Zone going down to ground level! Caused some chaos for a while, believe me. It turned out to be an airline pilot flying! Another airline pilot scared us all one day... Flying a CL-44 from Luton to Lasham, he contacted Leavesden as he flew past. The controller at Leavesden said something like "I have no traffic, cleared to Lasham good day". What he meant was, I don't need to talk to you any more so you can call Lasham but the pilot thought he could fly direct Lasham... Meanwhile, a PPL had been cleared SVFR across the zone from White Waltham towards Denham... When we saw the unidentified aircraft joining the zone heading southwest from Leavesden we warned the PPL and asked him if he could see it, "Christ, it's a Britannia!" he said as the CL-44 passed him.

On another occasion an unidentified aircraft entered the zone near Fairoaks and proceeded to circle Windsor for about 10 minutes. Heathrow was on easterlies so chaos ensued.. It was a flying instructor who had decided to show his pupil Windsor castle.

How does one legislate for imbeciles?? Big problem is that when these people are taken to court the magistrates haven't a clue about aviation so let them off with a token fine instead of locking them up for 5 years and then hanging them.

[TCAS FAN]

Heathrow Director

Agree, education is part of the problem. Just how much of the PPL syllabus is devoted to operation in controlled airspace?

With respect to ATCO training, if an ATC Unit has a history of infringements its Safety Managment System must recognise it as an operational hazard and put in place mitigation measures to reduce the resultant risk factor to "As Low As Reasonably Possible" (ALARP).

Part of the mitigation measures must be ATCO training which can be regularly required via TRUCE.

To their credit NATS has devoted considerable resources to tackling the infringement proble. While this has met with some success, an unacceptably high level of infringements still occur.

Time for the regulator to do something more?

From my too many years in the business I've seen dozens of infringements, and resultant "slap wrist" approach by CAA. This latter tactic may be a result of a lack of CAA financial resources to pursue prosecutions.

If the CAA does not have the resources to pursue each prosecution how about a "Formal Caution" approach to the problem? If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that an infringement has occurred, and thereby a criminal offence has been committed, the alleged offender is given the option of his/her day in court or admit the offence and receive a formal caution. This would remain on file for a defined period of time.

Any proven second offence within the time span would result in the FCL (whether it be PPL/CPL/ATPL) being suspended.

[betterfromabove]

HD - you really should write a book!

What's surprising is the wide range of experience levels involved in infringements, from student PPL's right through to ATPL's.

Have any stats been released on this? The details must be gathered in the ATC reports are they not?

Even though the consequences might not be quite so grave, in a sense, we should also include transgressions of other kind of airspace into the problem as well (e.g. para drop zones, glider sites, DA's). The essential issue is that pilots are losing SA of the hazard environment around them.

[chevvron]

One of the worst I encountered (but not the worst) was also a Senior ATPL , who'd also been a Nav Instuctor in the RAF. Took off from Wycombe to fly to Lydd and guess what, why turn corners, let's go in a straight line. He called Farnborough and I identified him about 4nm north west of Heathrow tracking south east.

[betterfromabove]

Is there perhaps a disconnect in the GA pilots' mind between the classification of airspace and ATS services they learn about in Thom Vol 1 and the real world, especially as it exists in the SE of England?

It speaks of a gaping hole in PPL mentoring and sharing of experience. I'm also convinced there's a "tunnel vision" many GA pilots develop, whether relying on dead reckoning or GPS....

.....they not only need to keep a lookout air-wards, but at the ground too. It's the ultimate answer as to where they are. At PA28/C172 speeds in good VFR, there's no excuse not to....

You cannot seriously navigate your way, say, around the LHR zone without x-checking with ground truth continually anyway.

Do you guys feel that Irv Lee's Airspace Aware videos and website are having any effect? Not being publicised enough??

[soaringhigh650]

During my time at Heathrow I must have seen hundreds of zone infringers (curse them!)... One way of reducing infringements would be better training of pilots... OK, infringments don't happen every day but those that do usually reveal exceptional stupidity on the part of the pilot


Another way of reducing infringements would be to not have outrageously complicated Class-A airspace running down to super low-levels which bans the VFR-only pilot.

Over in New York, there are just a few SIMPLE CIRCLES. Many get Flight Following and/or transition through Class-B airspace. Vectors may be given to assist pilots and to provide them with safety through what is a very busy area.

And if you can't/don't want to talk to anyone, you can follow the clearly marked VFR transition routes.

Don't curse pilots when you can't even design airspace. :*

[soaringhigh650]

5000 feet vertical

Although not even an unidentified slow moving aircraft at needs that kind of space. I would say standard IFR separation should suffice.

[betterfromabove]

Are our UK "brick" shaped CZ's not the most efficient, minimum size, form they need to be to fit in app/dep's, plus downwind vectoring....??

It always amazes me how small the zones are for Heathrow and City.

MATZ are broadly circular (with stubs) and yet get two nearby and you end up with complicated CMATZ. Surely, that would never work in the London area....you'd have loads of overlapping circles.

[soaringhigh650]

Most efficient in terms of what?

Fuel burn? Not to VFR flights because it's banned from Class-A all over the place.

Safety? Not really, because of its vast uncontrolled nature in the open FIR, multiple choke points, no separation, and high numbers of non-squawking, non-radio traffic with unknown intentions and airspace busts.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

soaringhigh... I don't know why you have to be so aggressive/rude. Yes, i only got 2 GCE O levels but I worked successfully as a controller all my life.

Class A airspace is NOT complex. Light aircraft and helicopters can fly in there but under positive control. They do it all day around London, but in complete safety. Controllers know the rules; pity some pilots do not. We haven't had two many mid-air collisions in UK controlled airspace, unlike some countries I could mention.

betterfromabove... The London Control Zone was reduced in size some years ago, I believe due to lobbying from the light aircraft brigade.

[Roffa]

soaringhigh650,

Don't curse pilots when you can't even design airspace.

The airspace is designed as is in large part because of the input the consultation process allows to you and your GA peers. It could be simpler but it would almost certainly be larger, ergo you have what your fraternity wants.

If you'd rather fly in the US style system that you always bang on about then put your compass on 'W' and keep going, you'll get there eventually.

[betterfromabove]

There is the question of why we don't set up more VFR transit routes across CA in this country....?

Would this really help? Or just make the controllers' job even more difficult as GA pilots didn't follow these properly either...?

On the other hand, we have created rat-runs around London, which increase the risk hitting GA. How there haven't been more incidents around Booker, Redhill or the Thames Estuary I don't know...

[betterfromabove]

Soaringhigh,

Heathrow - quite understandably - is Class A.

Therefore, it's design is premised on the efficiency of commercial jets, since VFR by definition shouldn't be in it. If we get SVFR privileges, they are just that, when and if we don't cause a nuisance.

Although we get VFR by right in lesser categories of CA, the design will always be based on what the big boys need to manouevre.

My impression (e.g. look at London City), is this airspace is only as big as it needs to be.

And it's a tight squeeze sometimes. City's Class D had to be extended at its eastern end slightly, as CT was frequently passing into the Open FIR in climbs/descents.

Circular CZ's make more sense where there are multiple runways. Perhaps that's why UK MATZ are basically circular (a vestige of the old WW2 triangular arrangement of runways??)?

Crosswind runways are unfortunately getting pretty rare at major UK airports these days, and there's usually only ever one instrument axis, so hence the brick shape, right?!

BFA

[reportyourlevel]

Although not even an unidentified slow moving aircraft at needs that kind of space.

A fast one does though!

[soaringhigh650]

I don't know why you have to be so aggressive/rude


I apologize. I typed in anger and shall re-edit.

I can understand how frustrating it is when pilots have strayed into some controller's sector without a clearance, but it's very unfair to tarnish such pilots as 'exceptionally stupid' and to 'curse' them for all you care.

Greater understanding of each other's problems is clearly the way forward.

For the ATCers who don't fly, see if you can get a chance to sit in a pilot's Cessna for a ride. Try and understand the workload that goes on behind the cockpit and the limited instruments (compared to a jet) that they have. Study the navigation requirements they face and the training syllabus they go through. You will then understand why people might accidentally bust airspace.

Also, study the airspace and number of busts around busy airports in the US. Look at the fewer numbers of centralized units operating across a larger area who mix IFR and VFR well. Compare it to the large numbers of small disjointed units in the UK, particularly at 1000-4000ft level. You might find busts aren't a huge problem out in the US. But the penalties are severe too.

since VFR by definition shouldn't be in it

But I don't see light aircraft being banned from large airports and airspace over here.


If you'd rather fly in the US style system that you always bang on about then put your compass on 'W' and keep going, you'll get there eventually.


I'm here already. Flying 'W' takes me straight to California which is paradise. :}

[betterfromabove]

Soaringhigh - Re: Class A, it's nominally IFR only the world over, as far as I understand it. Any VFR traffic in it, will be operating SVFR (hence, a concession).

Also, as I understand it, your big CZ's in the US are Class B. This is what allows IFR and VFR to mix.

Comparing the US and the UK in most respects of life is just a joke, but especially in aviation. There is much we can learn and harmonise from each other, but the environments are utterly different.

[WorkingHard]

Perhaps consideration should be given to a requirement by the aispace "owners" to provide sufficient controllers to allow max capacity of that airspace. One often hears of VFR transits being denied "due to controller workload" An adherance to the rules on both sides may also help. A blanket ROCAS is not helpful when requesting a transit and as I understand it an aircraft requesting a transit, according to the rules, should be given a time frame when to expect a clearance. I appreciate that controller workload will oft render this impractible but in which case please read sentence 1 above. Such a radicle idea may reduce profits but employ more controllers.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

WorkingHard.. Who is going to pay for the additional staff to provide an intermittent service? During long periods of bad weather there may be no traffic for days on end. SVFR flights are not charged (at least they weren't when I was working). I once suggested a fixed charged for transit of the London Control Zone and the roof fell in! GA pilots want the service but they aren't happy about paying for it.

Onward clearance times are only issued when aircraft are held - and I have done that with SVFR traffic inbound to Heathrow. However, for tyransit traffic it would pointless holding when "going round the outside" only adds a minute of so to the trip.

[WorkingHard]

HD I am not unaware of the issues that may result BUT if someone want exclusive use of a block of airspace, or near exclusive use, then they should be required to fund the service properly. I do not require exclusivity and will happily mix with other traffic. The argument that GA should pay is quite spurrious. GA, as has been shown on so many occasions, does pay and very heavily in many cases for the "priviledge" of being able to fly in airspace that is uncontrolled and on some occasions in CAS "when controller workload permits". As I said in the beginning, if you want the airspace then devote the resources required to manage it properly and not simply provide for CAT ops. You pay nothing for the exclusive use of that airspace, what you pay for is the cost of a service to CAT. I repeat you pay nothing for the exclusive use of the airspace. Please forgive me if I have missed the introduction of a rent on the volume of airspace you "control"

[soaringhigh650]

Perhaps consideration should be given to a requirement by the aispace "owners" to provide sufficient controllers to allow max capacity of that airspace


But it does say on the NATS website:


The terms of our licence, available in full on the CAA website, require NATS to be capable of meeting on a continuous basis any reasonable level of overall demand. We are charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace.


;)

[WorkingHard]

Unfortunately soaringhigh650 there is no way in the UK they can be forced into that position except by the CAA - and I dont think they (the CAA) care enough about anything other than CAT to force the issue.

[betterfromabove]

Wanted to try pick up this thread again as I'm currently putting together some proposals for a study to look into possible airspace infringement solutions. I'm doing this from a technology consultancy viewpoint, pulling together ideas on the GA pilot and the controller side.


Have been speaking to AOPA and several ANSP's on this subject. There seems general enthusiasm for the topic and a solution, although I suspect we may need a consortium to fund the enterprise.

There are a number of airborne solutions out there (AWARE, suitably used GPS & other nav kit etc), but my focus is more on the pre-flight preparation side of the equation. This is a function of GA pilot culture and the tools they choose to deploy.


What I'd like to get is a better feel for though is the degree to which controllers feel equipped for dealing with the incidents when they occur. Have been hearing from senior controllers that they think training for resolving the infringement situation once it occurs is not the issue so much as preventing the series of events that lead up to it. This is clearly the domain of the GA pilot, however, there doesn't appear unanimity on whether controllers would also benefit from some degree of further infringement awareness (prevention or resolution).


Any views anyone can offer? Are the full-field simulators sufficient for this? Is there enough refresher training? Is on-the-job, site-specific training the only real way? Or, could an approach avoiding taking up/heading to the full simulator be feasible? Please feel free to PM.


Would be also interested to hear from any colleagues you may know with particular interest in this area.

[chevvron]

You have to ask yourself this:
What is the best way of mitigating infringements? Is it:-
a) Allocate a 'listening' squawk ie pilots select this and listen to the controlling authority frequency without establishing 2 -way contact.
b) Allow pilots not intending to enter to establish 2-way contact with the controlling authority.
c) Set up a special unit which will identify all traffic (even those on 'basic' service) establishing 2 -way contact so that this unit can warn the pilot if he/she is seen to be about to infringe.

I was the person who suggested c) above to NATS which materialised in the form of London LARS operated from Farnborough, and I'm proud to say that it seems to have worked well in reducing but unfortunately not eliminating the number of infringements under the LTMA.