Infringements
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10 Realman
You stated that the controller said that you were flying in the TMA but you couldn't have been as you were flying over a house that you knew was outside of CAS.
I have a small problem with this
The TMA is a peice of airspace that never touches the ground! If you were flying in the TMA you must have been flying above the base or at least your transponder was indicating that you were above the base
Perhaps you meant that the controller said you were flying in the zone?
Just a little bit of information on CAIT. It only activates when the radar processor shows that an unauthorised aircraft is in the confines of CAS. If you think that it is incorrect then the whole radar system that NATS and the Airforce is using to control, is also showing aircaft incorrectly
It is funny how many times we hear that one, but when we check if it is showing an aircraft "incorrectly" in CAS it is also showing aircraft correctly flying down the ILS for the airport....
Edited for spelling (and probably will be again)
You stated that the controller said that you were flying in the TMA but you couldn't have been as you were flying over a house that you knew was outside of CAS.
I have a small problem with this
The TMA is a peice of airspace that never touches the ground! If you were flying in the TMA you must have been flying above the base or at least your transponder was indicating that you were above the basePerhaps you meant that the controller said you were flying in the zone?
Just a little bit of information on CAIT. It only activates when the radar processor shows that an unauthorised aircraft is in the confines of CAS. If you think that it is incorrect then the whole radar system that NATS and the Airforce is using to control, is also showing aircaft incorrectly
It is funny how many times we hear that one, but when we check if it is showing an aircraft "incorrectly" in CAS it is also showing aircraft correctly flying down the ILS for the airport....
Edited for spelling (and probably will be again)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LL Director, agree with the comment about sat navs etc, my Garmin 295 when in the car gives the location far more accurately than the built in system. How many Tom Tom's would you risk a GPS approach with 
The aircraft has a Garmin 530 which is cleared for B-RNAV so it should be pretty accurate.
This brings into question the accuracy of radars used by NATS and other units, the system may be accurate but the maps are reliant on somebody feeding in the correct information, a couple of incorrect digits and you are 'inside'.
Roffa, how come when AC went over to MRT we had to start using 5 miles after the cross when tracks passed in opposite direction? Something to do with being unable to write a safety case, so according to the rule makers/engineers the radar is less accurate now than with using single source
CAIT is only going to be as aqccurate as the system allows it, will it be like speed cameras, you are guilty and have to prove your innocence despite the system.
As has been said before it goes back to training and education on both sides of the house.
The aircraft has a Garmin 530 which is cleared for B-RNAV so it should be pretty accurate.This brings into question the accuracy of radars used by NATS and other units, the system may be accurate but the maps are reliant on somebody feeding in the correct information, a couple of incorrect digits and you are 'inside'.
Roffa, how come when AC went over to MRT we had to start using 5 miles after the cross when tracks passed in opposite direction? Something to do with being unable to write a safety case, so according to the rule makers/engineers the radar is less accurate now than with using single source
CAIT is only going to be as aqccurate as the system allows it, will it be like speed cameras, you are guilty and have to prove your innocence despite the system.
As has been said before it goes back to training and education on both sides of the house.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of thread drift, but in the airspace I am occasionally responsible for it is a common occurrence for GA traffic which, for example, is cleared to leave South to then turn and leave CAS on a track of 3 o'clock on the radar. 
This is one of the reasons I treat GA traffic with a bit of caution, unless I *know* I can trust the pilot.
This is one of the reasons I treat GA traffic with a bit of caution, unless I *know* I can trust the pilot.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roffa, how come when AC went over to MRT we had to start using 5 miles after the cross when tracks passed in opposite direction?
However IIRC MATS part 1 states opposite direction traffic can be climbed/descended when clear i.e. daylight. Because of the SMF etc, we use the required separation minima applicable to the ops room. 5 miles in AC, 3 miles in TC.
Not a legality, but a best practice because as soon as the SMF goes off, paperwork has to be completed... and the ATCO suspended, even temporarily. This means getting them out of the seat straight away... not very practical if doing it every time!!! This is the case even if it is not a safety issue and we are following MATS part 1 rules. SMF alerts have to be 'investigated'.
AC are putting a safety case together for 3 miles. This takes time. 5 Miles is used at moment due to inaccuracies of radar (single source tho this is a throwback to years ago) and the fact that aircraft en-route fly faster (avoiding action takes longer).
Interestingly (not really) - military approach units have had 3 miles for years on old radar systems... even on fast pointy jets with high climb rates etc. There are stipulations, below FL245, within 40 miles of overhead etc etc, but it is done.
Interestingly number 2 (again not really), when TC CAP was looking to take some airspace from LMS in a re-structurisation(?) plan last year, Ops were going to ask SRG for the right to use 3 miles in the new CAP airspace (LMS uses 5). It was thought that this would be not insurmountable.
Modern navaids etc mean that 5 miles is pretty obsolete.
Last edited by anotherthing; 27th Nov 2009 at 10:12.
Tried Tom Tom in a different environment. On my boat moored in the marina, it said I was on an island about 1/2 mile away (well I suppose it's for 'land' use only, so it searched for the nearest bit of land with a name in its database)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is for the most part simply statistics. However, one would hope that it would encourage both pilots and ATC to follow better operating practice.
Multi source radar can have problems because the ATCO can not determine which radar is actually providing the position indicated on the display - the one 15nm away, the one 30nm away or the one 60nm away.
If I remember correctly, units which use muti-radar information not only have to switch to single source when doing SRA's but have to use the radar head on which the procedure is based i.e. the radar used to calculate the obstacle clearance etc. I would expect that the same would apply to LL approach using 2.5nm separation.
ICAO DOCs provide guidance regarding radar accuracy, video map accuracy and of course mode C accuracy as well as when it is considered to be verified. Anyone accused of an infringement that they feel was unjustified should obtain the evidence and check the ICAO accuracy limitations. All very important in reporting an infringement. One must not forget that where Class A overlies class G an aircraft at the base level is considered to be in class G. Check ICAO requirements regarding how much a verified mode C can be above the base level before the aircraft is no longer considered to be at the base level and then the accuracy limitations of the altitude encoder and altimeter i.e. the maximum difference between what an appropriately calibrated altimeter tells the pilot and what the encoder transmitts. Don't forget that on a cold winter's day the altimeter will be sensing OAT which could be -20C while in many small unpressurised aircraft the encoder will be sensing the cabin air which could be +20C if they have a good heater. I will leave it for you to work out what the actual altitude of the aircraft is when the altimeter is at maximum error indicating 5500ft while the mode C is at maximum error in the other direction and what it is indicating!!
I suspect that therein lies a big number of what would be auto-recorded infringements which were not actual infringements.
The only true infringement of an airspace base is when the geometric altitude of the aircraft exceeds the geometric altitude of the airspace base.
Thus while infringement of a zone is realtively easy to prove, a small infringement of the base of a TMA is very hard to prove.
The comment about IFR approved GPS needs some clarification. Assuming everything is working perfectly, in the enroute mode, such a GPS is going to operate to BRNAV (RNP 5). If that 5nm partly overlaps some control zone then there is the posibility that the aircraft can be in the zone while the pilot receives an "on course" indication. It also means that if one flies straight at a control zone the aircraft could be in the zone when the pilot executes a 180 when indicated 3nm from the boundary.
Most of the time the GPS is more accurate but most of the time pilots don't infringe. It is the rest of the time that causes problems.
As for Tom-Tom - it is tied to the nearest road. Go from the M25 onto the M4 and see how far down the sliproad you are before the position indicated jumps from the M25 onto the sliproad. Most definitely not ever for aviation use!!
Multi source radar can have problems because the ATCO can not determine which radar is actually providing the position indicated on the display - the one 15nm away, the one 30nm away or the one 60nm away.
If I remember correctly, units which use muti-radar information not only have to switch to single source when doing SRA's but have to use the radar head on which the procedure is based i.e. the radar used to calculate the obstacle clearance etc. I would expect that the same would apply to LL approach using 2.5nm separation.
ICAO DOCs provide guidance regarding radar accuracy, video map accuracy and of course mode C accuracy as well as when it is considered to be verified. Anyone accused of an infringement that they feel was unjustified should obtain the evidence and check the ICAO accuracy limitations. All very important in reporting an infringement. One must not forget that where Class A overlies class G an aircraft at the base level is considered to be in class G. Check ICAO requirements regarding how much a verified mode C can be above the base level before the aircraft is no longer considered to be at the base level and then the accuracy limitations of the altitude encoder and altimeter i.e. the maximum difference between what an appropriately calibrated altimeter tells the pilot and what the encoder transmitts. Don't forget that on a cold winter's day the altimeter will be sensing OAT which could be -20C while in many small unpressurised aircraft the encoder will be sensing the cabin air which could be +20C if they have a good heater. I will leave it for you to work out what the actual altitude of the aircraft is when the altimeter is at maximum error indicating 5500ft while the mode C is at maximum error in the other direction and what it is indicating!!
I suspect that therein lies a big number of what would be auto-recorded infringements which were not actual infringements.
The only true infringement of an airspace base is when the geometric altitude of the aircraft exceeds the geometric altitude of the airspace base.
Thus while infringement of a zone is realtively easy to prove, a small infringement of the base of a TMA is very hard to prove.
The comment about IFR approved GPS needs some clarification. Assuming everything is working perfectly, in the enroute mode, such a GPS is going to operate to BRNAV (RNP 5). If that 5nm partly overlaps some control zone then there is the posibility that the aircraft can be in the zone while the pilot receives an "on course" indication. It also means that if one flies straight at a control zone the aircraft could be in the zone when the pilot executes a 180 when indicated 3nm from the boundary.
Most of the time the GPS is more accurate but most of the time pilots don't infringe. It is the rest of the time that causes problems.
As for Tom-Tom - it is tied to the nearest road. Go from the M25 onto the M4 and see how far down the sliproad you are before the position indicated jumps from the M25 onto the sliproad. Most definitely not ever for aviation use!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevvron - the database underneath the GPS is the problem you have with the "island" it will assume you didn't drive into the sea an "snap" to the nearest part of the database.
In terms of the original question (as a PPL) I seem to be one of the few fans of Mandatory Mode S. I've seen how quickly a registration can be picked up and called out to if they are listening in on the frequency. I understand it's our responsibilty to stay out - but every little helps.
GPS should be taught properly not ignored in the syllabus as it is now.
In terms of the original question (as a PPL) I seem to be one of the few fans of Mandatory Mode S. I've seen how quickly a registration can be picked up and called out to if they are listening in on the frequency. I understand it's our responsibilty to stay out - but every little helps.
GPS should be taught properly not ignored in the syllabus as it is now.
Don't forget that on a cold winter's day the altimeter will be sensing OAT which could be -20C while in many small unpressurised aircraft the encoder will be sensing the cabin air which could be +20C if they have a good heater. I will leave it for you to work out what the actual altitude of the aircraft is when the altimeter is at maximum error indicating 5500ft while the mode C is at maximum error in the other direction and what it is indicating!!
Put another way, both the Mode C and the altimeter measure the pressure and turn it into an altitude using the same ISA formula -- in the former case by a correction at the radar display, in the latter by the interaction of the subscale setting and the gears of the altimeter. Provided they are measuring the same pressure (and if they're not, there'll be a hell of a draft!) the indicated altitude will be the same.
There is of course a strategic review of the CAA underway Strategic Review of the Civil Aviation Authority this could potentially deal with the issue of prosecutions or not for minor "offences"
Throw a Dyce, whilst I empathise with the specific issues you have up north, I can assure you that the picture in the rest of the UK is not so black and white. Civil ATCOs do not have the monopoly on filing infringement reports.
As with every infringement or incident, there is a reason or a chain of events. What we do not want is a blame culture except in the most exceptional circumstances. Infringements occur for a variety of reasons: Altimeter settings, navigational errors, poor briefing, lack of information, poorly translated information, weather avoidance, distraction etc etc. Very rarely is an infringement deliberate and often a phone call can solve the issue. Sometimes there may be a need for a strong letter or the such but all aircrew and atcos must get a sense of perspective on things and try and get to the root cause of the problem.
Fly Safe
Throw a Dyce, whilst I empathise with the specific issues you have up north, I can assure you that the picture in the rest of the UK is not so black and white. Civil ATCOs do not have the monopoly on filing infringement reports.
As with every infringement or incident, there is a reason or a chain of events. What we do not want is a blame culture except in the most exceptional circumstances. Infringements occur for a variety of reasons: Altimeter settings, navigational errors, poor briefing, lack of information, poorly translated information, weather avoidance, distraction etc etc. Very rarely is an infringement deliberate and often a phone call can solve the issue. Sometimes there may be a need for a strong letter or the such but all aircrew and atcos must get a sense of perspective on things and try and get to the root cause of the problem.
Fly Safe
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very rarely is an infringement deliberate and often a phone call can solve the issue. Sometimes there may be a need for a strong letter or the such but all aircrew and atcos must get a sense of perspective on things and try and get to the root cause of the problem.
If drink drivers can avoid jail or get a reduced sentence or whatever by signing up to some adiction programme then why can't the CAA offer remedial navigation / crm training as an alternative to court action. The pilot can then get some training and having logbook evidence of that training, please the CAA enough to avoid a court case.
Only problem is where does one go for navigation training that will actually work! The standard of navigation training at PPL and CPL level in the UK is the real reason behind the high number of infringements in the UK but that is never going to get better until the CAA or perhaps EASA does something about it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
It's our management that requires us to report every infringement of our CTA/CTR,military or civil.We will get the pilot to call,if we can trace them,but by that time the report is in the system.
With regards to the military,then I change the way I work when they are charging about.I keep civil traffic much higher when they are operating just under the CTR without calling.The reason is if they low level abort,I know what level they abort to,(their min terrain safe),and take 1000ft plus on that.However low level abort in the real world is climb straight up into CAS without calling, 7700 if your lucky,then call up on the wrong frequency (Always in that order).Then they are staring at an A320 head-on.
At my unit they call it good TRM.I call it covering my back because I have seen too many incidents,don't trust the military,and you ain't putting me in jail.The most serious PPL infringements are nothing compared to what the military have done,and continue to do up to this day.Yet nothing seems to change.
It's our management that requires us to report every infringement of our CTA/CTR,military or civil.We will get the pilot to call,if we can trace them,but by that time the report is in the system.
With regards to the military,then I change the way I work when they are charging about.I keep civil traffic much higher when they are operating just under the CTR without calling.The reason is if they low level abort,I know what level they abort to,(their min terrain safe),and take 1000ft plus on that.However low level abort in the real world is climb straight up into CAS without calling, 7700 if your lucky,then call up on the wrong frequency (Always in that order).Then they are staring at an A320 head-on.
At my unit they call it good TRM.I call it covering my back because I have seen too many incidents,don't trust the military,and you ain't putting me in jail.The most serious PPL infringements are nothing compared to what the military have done,and continue to do up to this day.Yet nothing seems to change.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, reporting every infringer should be mandatory. This is not done to apportion blame or to prosecute, but to gather statistics and to educate.
NATS have done a lot of work to prevent incidents - CAIT, flyontrack.com, presentations to flying clubs, production of leaflets and DVS etc.
To properly target resources statistics need to be gathered... different flying clubs may have different reasons for infringements etc or particular problems due to their location.
The statistics need to continue to be gathered to see if measures being taken are effective, or if they need re-assessing.
However, if someone is deemed to be criminally or repeatedly negligent, then the full force of the law should be used, whether that entails revocation of licence, re-training, or more.
DFC has echoed what I said earlier and hits the nail firmly on the head
GPS may be good - but it does not mean that proper undertanding and proven ability in Clock-Map-Ground techniques should be overlooked.
NATS have done a lot of work to prevent incidents - CAIT, flyontrack.com, presentations to flying clubs, production of leaflets and DVS etc.
To properly target resources statistics need to be gathered... different flying clubs may have different reasons for infringements etc or particular problems due to their location.
The statistics need to continue to be gathered to see if measures being taken are effective, or if they need re-assessing.
However, if someone is deemed to be criminally or repeatedly negligent, then the full force of the law should be used, whether that entails revocation of licence, re-training, or more.
DFC has echoed what I said earlier and hits the nail firmly on the head
The standard of navigation training at PPL and CPL level in the UK is the real reason behind the high number of infringements in the UK
GPS may be good - but it does not mean that proper undertanding and proven ability in Clock-Map-Ground techniques should be overlooked.
Despite my light-hearted comment earlier in the thread, infringements are an issue that everyone needs to be concerned about. One contributory factor is the bipartite nature of the airspace in the UK. Even where ATSOCAS is provided, different controllers are working aircraft on each side of the boundary line -- in many other states it doesn't work like that.
NATS seems to have made a significant effort to do its bit to address the issue. London LARS, listening squawks and most recently, the Aware device all contribute. Certainly navigational training needs improvement, but that's more about learning how to navigate in the modern era, not about pretending that it was all better in the olden days.