Surveillance Mandatory Zones if infringements aren't cut

[Maulkin]

Looks like CAA are getting very miffed (rightly so) about infringements: http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/newsfeed.php?artnum=2316

[ak7274]

Create more airspace and wonder why the Proletariat infringe? How about working out a solution instead?

[maxred]

And also how about making it a bit less complicated. The drive for years was to cut infringements, whilst loading up more and more CTZ. Also Military Danger Areas are springing up all over the bloody place. Flying is really not what it used to be....:confused::confused:

[Mach Jump]

Failure to achieve the target could see the future introduction of surveillance mandatory zones (SMZ) to provide a conspicuity buffer around particular hotspot, continued the CAA. The aim of the SMZ will be to provide a ‘known traffic environment’ around the hotspot’s class D airspace. This could lead to a requirement for the mandatory use of radios and/or transponders in that buffer area.

So the solution to infringements is to make the restricted areas bigger? :rolleyes:

Sounds like a policy that will encourage even more pilots to fly with their transponders switched off. :ugh:


MJ:ok:

[robin]

Looking over the GA Occurrence reports it is clear there are a lot on infringements, but it isn't clear how serious they are.

My feeling is that certain airfields have been 'encouraged' to report whereas once upon a time, they didn't

I guess it is a drive to create or extend Class D and avoid the hassle of a full-blown airspace change.

We've seen how quickly a TMZ or RMZ can be created compared to a change of Airspace Class. The SMZ is a natural and cheaper extension of this

[ShyTorque]

I suggest that a lot of infringements occur near "choke points" between CAS. The narrower the gap, the more likely pilots are to bust the adjacent airspace.

[Mach Jump]

We've seen how quickly a TMZ or RMZ can be created compared to a change of Airspace Class. The SMZ is a natural and cheaper extension of this

An SMZ is a TMZ and an RMZ combined.

Just Class D by the back door.:*


MJ:ok:

[xrayalpha]

MJ,

An SMZ is a Class D+ !

No need for a transponder to access Class D in Scotland.

[londonblue]

So the solution to infringements is to make the restricted areas bigger?

Sounds like a policy that will encourage even more pilots to fly with their transponders switched off.


MJ

Sound to me like something Douglas Adams would have thought up.

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich. [...]

"But we have also," continued the management consultant, "run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying on ship's peanut." [...]

"So in order to obviate this problem," he continued, "and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and...er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances.”

[maxred]

Superb Londonblue

There are many that could be related to the airspace philosophy

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.

and

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm having fun with one at the moment - allegedly I climbed into a bit of CTA in speeds and climb rates of which the aeroplane I was flying was incapable, on a sortie where I had no reason to fly that high, whilst mode-S was squawking hex code but not reg. We checked the mode S a few weeks later with the same tower, and they could read reg and hex both - no maintenance done on same box in between.

I pointed out that it probably wasn't me for these reasons, and was subsequently the unhappy recipient of an email suggesting that I was not showing the right attitude and probably needed reporting to CAA for licencing action. Everybody can probably guess, without being told, the tone of my response to that.

I don't dispute that putting big and little aeroplanes in the same place at the same time is a bad thing unless properly controlled, but there's a distinct attitude problem in the airspace allocating community that is as much in need of fixing as anybody's navigation here. Also just possibly the technology isn't quite as good as NATS think it is at detecting these things.

G

[soaringhigh650]

So they made most of UK airspace Class A, extremely complex, inaccessible to VFR flights and boundaries hard to understand.

And now they are having a go at the pilots?

It's completely embarrassing. We can clearly see what needs simplifying.

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd397/soaringhigh650/london.jpg

Source: SkyDemon

[flybymike]

I pointed out that it probably wasn't me for these reasons, and was subsequently the unhappy recipient of an email suggesting that I was not showing the right attitude and probably needed reporting to CAA for licencing action. Everybody can probably guess, without being told, the tone of my response to that.

Genghis, if that email wasn't from the CAA who was it from? The ATC unit?

[flybymike]

It's completely embarrassing. We can clearly see what needs simplifying.


I hope you made it safely from Cambridge to Worthing in one piece.....

[ETOPS]

Talk about "soaring high" :eek:

Looks like he's planned that at FL350...

[soaringhigh650]

At 7500ft actually which what I use to cruise over New York.

We don't even have airspace 'alerts' here. Using the popular UK Skydemon tool there's about a dozen 'issues' I still have ta sort out.

[ShyTorque]

Just do it, SH... I'm sure they'll understand; obviously it's just the entire system that's wrong, not you..

P.s. please post pics of the Typhoons on your wingtips.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, if that email wasn't from the CAA who was it from? The ATC unit?

NATS.

G


(Random text to meet 10 character minimum).

[Romeo Tango]

If you think our airspace is complicated .... have you been to France?
In the good old days they had a very sensible Gallic attitude and no one really minded if one flew through the odd bit of red air ... but now they have AA missiles mounted on the power stations :(

[Pirke]

@Skydemon picture above: as a software developer I would seriously try to find a line drawing bug when looking at that, as that can't be correct...

[mikehallam]

I suggest SH needs to update his Sky Demon as Sarfend have even more space than his version above.

Also it seems to leave off many airfields which show on the NATS/CAA charts ?

However direct crossing of HRW should be amusing !

mike hallam.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Sarfend have even moreWHERE? I reckon some local dialect pun must be intended but my Patagonian and Swahili are less sharp than they used to be.

And as for direct crossing of HRW : from the list indicated below, which is meant by HRW?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HRW_%28disambiguation%29

[londonblue]

Sarfend
Being born and bred from there, can I just point out the spelling is wrong. It should be:


Sahfend.

[bad bear]

I think I like the idea of a surveillance mandatory zone if it is inside the existing airspace boundary. Large areas of the BHX airspace are not used as the departure gradients used to plan the airspace were so conservative I don't think there is an aeroplane that has been built in the last 30 years that needs 22 nm to climb to 6,000' in reality many aeroplanes make it in 10 miles or less.One of the departures allows something in the region of 30 miles for the climb to 6,000' I seem to remember the reason the gradients were low was for the ATP and an allowance for the hottest day with the least favourable wind and max weight and a pressure that meant FL55 was 6,500'. With the recent change of transition level being crudely implemented in that FL 55 became 5,500' the lower levels are also little used, or at least should be rarely used as planes should be flying Continuous Descent Approaches.
I recon there could be a surveillance zone inside that would act as a buffer so no need for it to be on the class g side.

bb

[bookworm]

Being born and bred from there, can I just point out the spelling is wrong. It should be:
Sahfend.

Wot? It's "Sahfen" ma'e.

[Jan Olieslagers]

OK, have your own fun but please terminate my doubts: is it Swahili or is it Patagonian or whatever else?

And I remain just as curious about the HRW bit. Or is that Welsh, perhaps?

[patowalker]

Jan,
It is Swahili for Southend and the Patagonian abbreviation of HeathRoW.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Ah, how good to have literate reliable well-eddicated connections. Thanks, Donald, I knew I could count on you.

That said, didn't London-Heathrow use to be referred to as LHR? Or was that from a different or even enemy codebook?

[cessnapete]

Most of these airspace busts could be avoided if the CAA redesigned controlled airspace to suit present day IFR aircraft performance. Other than around IFR arrival and departure tracks at major airports, there should be no need for class A below 4 or even 6000ft.
For example why on earth is the London TMA base 2500 ft between Lhr and Lgw. and surrounding areas. ?

[patowalker]

That said, didn't London-Heathrow use to be referred to as LHR? Or was that from a different or even enemy codebook?

Why call it LFAT or LTQ when L2K is so much easier to remember and is probably more readily understood?

[flybymike]

But not more readily understood than Le Touquet. ;)