Transponder Mandatory Zones - Have NATS consulted you individually?

[Julian Hensey]

With the CAA announcing plans to bring in Transponder Mandatory Zones ( http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...etail&nid=1461 ) the effect it could have on non transponder equipped aircraft ( such as balloons and gliders ) will be severe.

I am trying to ascertain if individual ATCOs have had a chance to comment on these proposals. It is clear from my "pint of beer" discussions that there is a consensus of opinion that they really are not needed, but I am wondering whether people have been given the chance formally to respond to these.

My concern is that I have seen pilots report to ATC "I think I can see a glider/balloon within controlled airspace" - does this then turn into a formal report? - this then gives ammunition for the CAA to say "told you so, there it is, controlled zone penetration therefore transponders must come in". The problem I have seen personally is that pilots call saying "oh oh I saw a balloon/glider close to controlled airspace...tell teacher!" - when in fact it is close, but not in the zone - but if a report is then filed it is damaging to the no transponder campaign... what is the protocol for a controlled zone bust formal report to ensure innocent pilots are not used as paperwork to prove the CAA's intentions are wise ones?

(Sorry just realised two questions there.....!)

[LXGB]

Hi Julian,

Originally Posted by JH

"I think I can see a glider/balloon within controlled airspace"

Originally Posted by JH

"oh oh I saw a balloon/glider close to controlled airspace...tell teacher!"

Sounds like good airmanship to me, not telling tales!

LXGB

[chevvron]

No individual consultation; does it ever happen? TMZ's are all very well in some areas, but note they say it will only be in specific areas; you write as if if they are implying it will be all class G airspace which is definitely not the case. I suspect it is to cater for places like Norwich and Humberside who do not have regulated airspace but do have a high proportion of IFR commercial flights.

[PPRuNe Radar]

There's a big flaw with your thread title.

NATS is not the CAA. The CAA set UK policy and carry out the necessary consultations with industry representative groups, which include NATS and other companies. Individuals can also comment where relevant (Mode S for example) but you won't get a personal invite to comment. You have to keep your eye on announcements, the aviation press, or on campaigns from people like the PFA or AOPA.

NATS carries out consultations when making proposals to establish or change airspace structures, in exactly the same way as any other ATS provider or organisation wishing to make changes has to. Again, this tends to be done through representative bodies, but can also be done by individuals if they know of the consultation, have the documents, and the address to send comments to. The process is all detailed in a formal process published by the CAA. It used to be called the Airspace Charter but might be something else by now.

TMZs, if they work like the Mode C veils in the USA, will be a very good step in enhancing safety by providing early detection of infringements. Bring these in and we can scrap the CAA proposal for everyone to have Mode S everywhere in my opinion (comments which I sent to the CAA as part of their original Mode S consultations - as an individual)

[Julian Hensey]

Thread title - exactly as should be...

no the thread title is accurate... you see.... NATS would have had to make a representation to the CAA about all these proposals. What I wanted to know is have individual ATCOs received any documentation or request for information to make their personal views known to the NATS management. At the moment the views from ATCOs seem to be unheard as they are not allowed or seem not to want to comment where their views may be seen on public viewable response documents because of their employer. If their employer is not asking their individual comments then we hear nothing on these proposals from the shop floor, exactly where the comments should be coming from....

[PPRuNe Radar]

In which case you are way ahead of yourself.

The first step is for the CAA (not NATS) to consult industry opinion on the legal framework it intends to put in place to enable the formation of TMZs. They don't exist at the moment so comment from individual ATCOs on TMZs in their particular airspace of interest is premature. How can you comment with a local view on something which doesn't exist, something we don't know the rules and procedures for, and has no legal basis for establishment ??

Phase Two

The CAA intends to conduct further public consultation on its policy aim to expand the requirement to carry and operate SSR transponders. This consultation will seek views on the following proposals:

· For all VFR flights conducted within controlled airspace to be equipped with SSR Mode S transponders.

· On a regulatory framework for the establishment of notified ‘Transponder Mandatory Zones’ (TMZs) within specific portions of uncontrolled airspace. The intention of TMZs would be to mitigate specific risks but with the minimum impact on uncontrolled airspace.

· For all international flights conducted by powered aircraft to operate with SSR Mode S

· The removal from the Air Navigation Order of the exemption for gliders from transponder carriage requirements.

With the exception of TMZs, operations in Class G airspace below Flight Level 100 would be unaffected by Phase Two, and the use of Letters of Agreement (LOA) and airspace reservations would continue to be available in specific circumstances. The proposed implementation date for this phase will be 31 March 2009, with a three year transition period to provide time for operators to install the necessary SSR Mode S capability.

John Arscott, Director of Airspace Policy, said: “A strategy to safely increase interoperability over time represents the best way to meet the future demands of all airspace users. The increased carriage of Mode S transponders is a significant step towards airspace safety and meeting this objective.”

If TMZs are then established as a legal airspace structure, it would then be for individual ATS units to apply for such status. If you work in NATS, then you will know that unit management will put forward the relevant case, consulting with the troops either through Technical Committees, union/management initiatives (Working Together, etc), Projects (by either getting individuals involved or seeking consensus) or other established means. If you want your say, there's plenty of opportunity to get yourself involved through any of the above, although ultimately you will have to take forward the group view, which might differ from your own radically.

Infringements are a major problem, anything which can help reduce their impact is hard to ignore. TMZs with Mandatory Mode C which would give controllers and pilots an early heads up on potential danger are a good idea in my opinion. Not Mode S, just Mode A & C.

[Gonzo]

Julian,

(edit: I crossed with PPRuNe Radar's post above...)

In my experience, ATCOs would not all be individually invited to comment on such future proposals or projects. If so, then we'd all be overwhelmed with such invitations.

However, I'd expect at units where the discussed change would have an impact on operations then the units' Ops section (consisting of ATCOs themselves, of course, amongst others) would be involved, and in the course of that process, 'coal face' ATCO would be canvassed for their opinion.

At the moment the views from ATCOs seem to be unheard as they are not allowed or seem not to want to comment where their views may be seen on public viewable response documents because of their employer.

I'd wager that there are few comments because to ATCOs, the proposed change (as much as I understand it), will not impact on them very much at all. Bear in mind of course that an ATCO saying 'we don't see a need for it' is very different to 'it's a bad idea, we shouldn't do it'.

[Julian Hensey]

I am grateful to the comprehensive reply, but as I see it the "regulatory impact assessments" were stuffed full of comments that people don't want this, etc etc but in my view it was "your getting this, now work out the best way to minimise the impact on your businesses".

interesting graph on the infringements but are these figures:

1) Comments from other pilots have said "he looks like he is inside the zone"

or

2) ATC confirming through radar that they are in the zone.

There are so many reports of "I think he is" that it is misleading if the figures are compiled that way. If this is the result of number 2 it is far more accurate.

[PPRuNe Radar]

The stats are from NATS controllers who allege that an aircraft has infringed Controlled Airspace under NATS control without permission to do so. The appropriate evidence would then be investigated by the CAA who would take appropriate action ranging from prosecutions (rarely) to words of sage advice and guidance (much more common).

More here

Fly On Track Infringement Stats

[NorthSouth]

I don't doubt that CAS infringements are a problem but the NATS stats have to be issued with the strong caveat that the figures have gone up a lot in the last couple of years as a result of NATS telling all their units to report all incidents however minor e.g. including cases where someone calls up the unit (=known traffic) and tells them they're remaining outside CAS then makes a minor nav error and strays marginally inside.
In my view one of the biggest drivers of this problem is the ever-rising cost of recreational flying leading to:
1) most PPLs having less currency
2) a lot of people opting for an NPPL which means less hours and doesn't include radio nav
3) lots of people being driven to flying microlights on a reduced syllabus with very little attention to flying in/near CAS
NS

[zkdli]

Infringements

AS someone who is intimitely associated with infringments, I can vouch that the stats in the graph are correct. At my unit we reported over 400infringements in the last year and since april we have had over 50. The losses of separation with the highest risk at my unit have all been caused by non-squawking infringing aircraft. I know that any TMZ will at least give the controllers and the pilots(TCAS) a fighting chance to defend themselves and their passangers from the menace of infinging aircraft. Remember it took a MIDAIR in the USA for the introduction of mode "C" veils.

[Roffa]

Bear in mind that FAA Mode C veils have exemptions (balloons, gliders and aircraft not equipped with an engine driven electrical system).

Assuming the CAA go down a similar route whilst the TMZ, or whatever it ends up being called, will be very welcome it will likely not be able to be a catch all.

[Point Seven]

I'm afraid that calling up and saying you're remaining outside, then making a "minor nav error" is simply not good enough. An infringement is an infringement and is indicative of a wider issue - that of poor airmanship. And if the cost of flying is increasing then that is not good news - but it is certainly no kind of excuse for zone infringements.

Also, surely an open reporting culture at NATS units can only help to find out the real reasons behind these occurrences an make sure that everyone learns lessons from them??

P7

[chevvron]

The allegation that microlight pilots are responsible for many infringements is totally misplaced; in my experience (being a member of a microlight club situated close to regulated airspace) is that they are in fact MORE aware of the boundaries than other PPLs as they ALWAYS have to plan DR/map read instead of relying on radio navaids as many PPLs do.

[zkdli]

Chevvron,
What you say maybe true. However, tell that to the easyjet pilot who encountered one at FL80 just northwest of Barkway.
I think that it is time that everyone faced the truth. Infringements of CAS are an everyday occurrence (in good weather- is there a link?) the ones reported are the tip of the iceberg. If something is not done soon we will be having a completley different thread topic.

[PPRuNe Radar]

NorthSouth

I think we'd only need a caveat on the NATS figures if we were using them to indicate a growing trend in infringements. I don't think that is what they are being used for.

Infringements have been around as long as Controlled Airspace has existed. What we are now trying to do is guage the size of the problem, find out the causes, and take measures to mitigate against the potential of an infringer (be it microlight, light aircraft, glider, balloon, military fast jet, or airliner) having a mid air collision with an aircraft expecting the protection of Controlled Airspace.

Some mitigations will be procedural (clearer airspace rules, better airspace designs, etc), some will be technical (Controlled Airspace Infringement Tool, TCAS, etc) and some will be human (better training, awareness, and education).

The problem is not going to go away by itself, that's the only certainty in the debate.

[Spitoon]

Let's get a few things straight here.

Originally Posted by Julian Hensey

With the CAA announcing plans to bring in Transponder Mandatory Zones ( http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...etail&nid=1461 ) the effect it could have on non transponder equipped aircraft ( such as balloons and gliders ) will be severe.

I am trying to ascertain if individual ATCOs have had a chance to comment on these proposals.

No individual controllers have been consulted no-one has. If you read the link in the first post the CAA says that it will consult on the Phase Two proposals later in the year - when everyone will have a chance to offer their input....including individual controllers.

As has already been pointed out, the CAA does not tell individuals about particular consultation processes but rather publishes them on their web site and contacts 'user groups' to make them aware. This appears to be a common way for government and other national agencies to work and is a lot better than it used to be!

Finally, individual controllers that you might chat to over a beer do not necessarily have 'the big picture'. Whilst the concern on this thread is about airspace infringements - which are a big issue to both pilots and controllers, although often for different reasons - I suspect this is a step towards the pan-European plan for airspace in the future. Individual controllers quite possibly will have little, if any, knowledge of big picture thins like this - whether this is a problem is a rather different issue - and so will not necessarily see all of the benefits or the full context.

[Julian Hensey]

The feedback from student pilots

Quite often I hear student pilots say "well I am too scared to use the radio etc etc" - the big problem here is that they are so scared to make a muck up on radio and being chewed off by a controller (this is perception not reality as of course controllers are far far happier to hear from the someone with a problem than not)

At a recent course I went to the student pilots were asked whether they would talk on radio if they got positional unaware and were worried they were somewhere they shouldn't be. About two hands went up out of fifteen in the class. It was appalling.

I think that the majority of airspace infringement pilots know they have gone wrong, but are too scared to do something about it radio wise or ask for help. Has any work been done on whether they actually know or are genuine lost and most importantly why they didn't call up? Think if you are in a zone that is busy and the radio is non stop with people that are professionals and you are a new pilot it could be very intimidating to pipe up - that is no excuse but how to change?

One idea came to me from a student - why not have a frequency where any pilot can call up without any ATC speak and say "i have a problem don't know what to do...." and forget ATC terminology - this gets rid of worry about what to say in ATC speak and least gets a student pilot talking.... yes I know, massive resources needed etc etc but it was an interesting idea.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Julian Hensey

One idea came to me from a student - why not have a frequency where any pilot can call up without any ATC speak and say "i have a problem don't know what to do...." and forget ATC terminology - this gets rid of worry about what to say in ATC speak and least gets a student pilot talking.... yes I know, massive resources needed etc etc but it was an interesting idea.

It already exists. Its on 121.5 and is manned 24/7 by professionals trained (and licensed) to deal with exactly these sorts of situation. They even have Direction Finding equipment which can pin point the aircraft position, direct lines to airports and up to date met info etc. etc. Its called D&D (Distress & Diversion) currently but shortly changing to A&FC (Alerting & Fixing Cell).

BD

[flower]

ATCOs would far rather you just spoke to them in plain language if you have any difficulties they are not going to chew anyones ear off if they fail to use the correct RT if lost or if encountering any other problems. ( they don't chew any ones ear off anyway for RT)

Visits to the local ATC unit by those students is in order I think to make them far less fearful of people who are there to help.