S-Works

I can remember a controller making a mistake as well on my "airspace bust", debated very fully on these forums.....

We are all human and all make mistakes. The reason I went off on one in the first place was to emphasise the fact that your average inexperianced PPL is going to make mistakes and could really do with the support of the ground infrastructure that is supposed to support all air traffic.

Not a fault of the controllers but I suspect very much a fault of the bean counters at NATS.

zkdli

For those interested NATS does not categorise infringements separately to other incidents. Any incident that results in a loss of Separation is investigated as is required by SRG. The report is passed to SRG. The Safety Significance Event scheme(SSEscheme) is a NATS way of categorising how serious the loss of separation actually was.
The SSE scheme is based around what resolved the incident and how close the aircraft came to each other. The categories go from 4 (the lowest) to 1 (good luck kept them apart).
If you are intersted get a visit to a centre. During your visit (if its LTCC) you will see example of infringements and the SSE scheme would be explained if you ask

Fuji Abound

zkdli

Thank you for such a straight forward and clear explanation.

A shame it couldnt have been dealt with by others equally clearly.

Is the SSE information passed on to the CAA and are any statistics published in the public domain which would indicate the spread of total infringements between categories?

Final 3 Greens

I must say as a disinterested observer (I don't fly in the UK and so have no axe to grind) that I find some of the comments of some of the ATCOs on this forum to be arrogant and inflammatory.

It does not give a good impression of the profession, but is sadly in line with the observable behaviors of some people in the UK service sectors who seem to think that the customers are dirt.

Customers, because although the airlines pay directly for NATS, they don't pay VAT on fuel, which therefore means that there is a large gap in government revenue and the result of that is that the books need to be balanced by extra taxes in other areas, with the result that general public (including PPLs) subsidise airline travel, thus offsetting the cost of NATS.

IO540

Well, what a thread. Been away for a few days and can't possibly read it all.

There are just 3 ways I know of to make anybody perform better (whether it is flying, driving, sex, whatever)

1. Selection

There is none in the PPL training. Ability is not accessed (and varies widely). Anybody who can pay for the next lesson can come along, and most can get a PPL if they hang around for long enough.

2. Training

This one we could debate but ultimately the syllabus must be taught, and since "nobody" wants a longer (read: "more expensive") PPL course, you can't add extra stuff.

Much as many, myself included, like to have a dig at the ATPL hour builders that predominate in the PPL training scene, I don't blame them for the WW1 syllabus. Many may be poor flying instructors (in the sense that they are not good natural teachers) but most have, or are about to, pass the vast JAA ground school and are thus definitely not stupid, and are well capable of teaching procedural matters. And CAS busts are procedural failures, not flying failures.

The ontrack survey is largely a waste of time because it fails to identify the exact procedural factors that led to the errors.

3. Better equipment or procedures

What could one do? Dead reckoning is never going to improve (for a given level/type of pilot selection and training) no matter how long people rant on about it. GPS usage should be brought into the PPL as standard, but this can't be done without making GPS installation mandatory in training planes, which the flight training business will be dead against, which means it will never happen.

This thread has moved on to ATC procedures but I don't see where these come in. If a pilot isn't navigating then he will bust anyway. I suppose one could abolish CAS, then CAS busts would not happen, but this isn't exactly likely! I suppose that if CAS transits were readily granted (as in the USA, two-way comms are sufficient to enter Class D; the problem here is that the UK operates D as if it was B/C) then fewer people would be skirting around the edges of CAS, but this still isn't a solution to poor navigation because if you are allowed a CAS transit, the ATCO expects you to fully know what you are doing and not fly some zigzag track.

The UK has very little CAS. If people are busting it comprehensively (rather than going half a mile in, on a track parallel to the boundary) then something is going very badly wrong.

flower

You have to wonder why any of us ATCOs even bother to come into this forum with the way we are constantly flamed and told by armchair critics how badly we do our job.
I work a Class D zone, in 15 years of ATC I have refused zone transits on 2 occasions. The first there was SAROPS on in the Zone and impossible to accommodate so I gave navigational assistance to the pilot to give him the shortest possible diversion, the second the pilots English was so poor that we were unable to get any understanding between the two of us, so Poor infact that a very stern phone call was made to his flying school advising that if they allowed him up again without a pilot unable to communicate with ATC then action would be taken against them.
I am sure that I am the norm rather than the rare ATCO as I know my colleagues would find it very hard to find a time they refused transits.

As for arrogance, well when you find people with limited knowledge telling you how badly you do your job when you know full well you go the extra mile to accommodate them ,and I come into the same Category as Alan M here , I'm well known for friendly and helpful attitude towards GA and the comments directed towards him are extremely unfair.

As for GA paying our wages, no sorry you don't it is a myth the VAT you pay on fuel comes no where near us, speak to the chancellor as to where that goes but it doesn't come into our coffers.

ATCOs don't cause Zone infringements, the number of times I have given a zone transit to pilots who haven't requested one whereas if they had continued on their track they would have infringed without a clearance, probably at least 10 a week. Something is woefully wrong, you cannot blame the CAS it has been there some time it is time something was done to improve awareness. Most ATC units welcome visitors, many ATCOs fly and freely give their time to educate pilots in many aspects of aviation. The likes of Mike T and many of my colleagues have roadshows being organised to try to educate about this, ATC is doing everything they possibly can to try to sort it but it is the Pilots who need to do something more.

rustle

Flower, I don't think Final 3 Greens was suggesting the VAT on fuel is hypothecated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecate) but that in a roundabout way (because airlines don't pay VAT on fuel) some of the money the airlines would have paid in VAT is paid instead to NATS, and that we (taxpayers) are left picking up the "shortfall"* in the VAT bill.

(* It isn't really a shortfall as it was never there in the first place, but you get the idea )

Apols to F3G if I have misunderstood...

Having written it down I no longer agree with him, though.

Warped Factor

My identity behind this user name is quite well known. I apologise profusely for allowing any concerns I personally might have about how putting more detailed information about my company's procedures on this website sits against my terms and conditions of employment. I'll know your curiosity should take precedence in future, however.



The information is not, to my knowledge, in the public domain in any great detail from the NATS pov. Just broad figures/trends. You'd probably need to make an official approach to ask for sight of it.

WF.

yakker

ATC talk about 'life stories' being transmitted, what does that mean? It would help if you make it clear exactly what you expect us PPL's to say.

I do agree with Fuji on
"remain outside of CAS"
"remain outside of CAS, onward clearance expected in x minutes"
"remain ourside of CAS, clearance will not be given".
the earlier we know about clearance the less chance of an infringement, and an alternative routing being used.

AlanM, you said "Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS". Okay but when I left Tollerton heading south I stayed under the CTA, but listened to East Midlands. The ATC spoke to an aircraft about 'unkown traffic' from the information I knew he was refering to me. At this point I did wonder if I should have spoken to East Midlands, I would then not have been unknown,
and my intentions would have been clear. All parties would know where I was going at that I was aware of the CTA and would not be infringing.

IO540

What is the data on the % of CAS busts v. how many were in contact with that ATC unit?

My impression is that most potentially serious busts are done as major nav errors, by non-radio flights (by non-radio I mean not talking to a radar unit; e.g. talking to London Info is going to be of no help)

As for "unknown traffic", if every such traffic called up some unit, the whole system would collapse. The UK ATS system is not geared up for providing any kind of services outside CAS to everybody who wants it - not by a factor of ten times. Far too many little planes flying about. It might just work in OVC007 weather when there is very little GA traffic anyway.

Warped Factor

This may be of interest.

WF.

Warped Factor

Essentially as little as possible. There have been various threads on this subject here and on the Flyer Forum, might be worth having a search before covering it all again on this one.

In the London area it is impracticable to call all the traffic under CAS to the IFR traffic just above inside so we tend not to call any of it unless circumstances demand it.

WF.

Talkdownman

5 Ws=
Who you are, ie. Callsign (I need to know what to call you.)
What you are, ie. Type (I need some idea of your performance.)
Where you are, ie. Position AND Altitude. (I need a clue where to find you.)
Where you want to go, ie. Route/Destination. (I need to make an impact assessment.)
What you want, ie service required. (I need to know how much you need looking after.)
Is that clear enough?

IO540

"Starting from November 23rd 2006, all aircraft receiving a flight information
service from “London Information” will be asked to select the transponder
code 7401."

That's a great idea, WR.

But why can't London Info have a screen in front of them? (unofficially)

They manage this in France on their FIS. No radar service as such is provided, but you can be flying along VFR at FL095, through various bits of Class D, and the way they work it is they communicate with you if it's going to be a problem, i.e. if there is conflicting traffic. Seems common sense to me. On a handover, they just say "radar contact" and you get another 20 minutes of silence. They can see where you are, which drastically cuts down the radio traffic.

You can be pedantic and say "request transit of such and such Class D" and the response is something very brief like "proceed".

Could it be to do with ATCO salaries going up if they are radar qualified?

flower

The men and woman who provide FIS on London Info are not ATCOs but FISOs hence why they cannot use a radar screen.
It would be excellent if we could have more FISOs and frequencies for them to provide a service over smaller areas, when it is a busy VFR day you often talk over others as the service they provide is so wide spread.

IO540

Sorry to sound like I am making a cheap point here Flower but

The men and woman who provide FIS on London Info are not ATCOs but FISOs hence why they cannot use a radar screen

is just like saying that my grandfather was a coalminer, my father was a coalminer, I am a coalminer and YOU MY SON are jolly damn well going down that mine too. My family's HONOUR depends on this tradition.

I bet you that every FISO would give an arm and a leg for a screen. As would most airfield "radio operators". The data is all digital so the cost of yet another feed is not a lot more than a 100 quid LCD screen. The data could be fed all over the place over the internet; HTTPS, (with GPRS/3G fallback).

Fuji Abound

WF

"My identity behind this user name is quite well known. I apologise profusely for allowing any concerns I personally might have about how putting more detailed information about my company's procedures on this website sits against my terms and conditions of employment. I'll know your curiosity should take precedence in future, however."

I very much doubt your employer would object to a simple summary such as "The SSE scheme is based around what resolved the incident and how close the aircraft came to each other. The categories go from 4 (the lowest) to 1 (good luck kept them apart)."

and if they do, then one has to wonder why.

Never the less if you thought otherwise I respect your integrity.

eyeinthesky

QUOTE
But why can't London Info have a screen in front of them? (unofficially)
UNQUOTE

Perhaps because, generally, they are providing a service across the whole of the London FIR south of 55N. How big would the display screen have to be to be able to display that radar picture in any form which would make the information on it of any use?

rustle

That was all detailed in a post you said:
about.

Small wonder people cannot be arsed explaining things again if:
When will you make up your mind?

flower

I'm sure they would love it but they can't use it for the service they provide so not much point