Disagreement in the Air
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Isle 6, Dairy produce
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagreement in the Air
I was recently flying towards a CTA at about 1500ft tracking a VOR radial. I was spot on this radial and totally sure of my position. I was then asked to verify my height and the radial I was tracking. Once the ATCO had this info she told me that my track took me into controlled airspace, which it did not. It took me under her airspace by a good 1000'.
My question is - Should I have argued the toss with the controller or just bit my tongue (as I did)?
My question is - Should I have argued the toss with the controller or just bit my tongue (as I did)?
for the rest of the trip. May still be wrong though. Thoughts?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Don't get drawn into an argument in the air; chances are you will end up not concentrating on your flying for some time afterwards which is a bad flight safety hazard.
Politely tell the controller that you thought not and say you will ring them to discuss it once safely on the ground. You can then blow each other's gaskets to your heart's content on the phone.
Politely tell the controller that you thought not and say you will ring them to discuss it once safely on the ground. You can then blow each other's gaskets to your heart's content on the phone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kanu,
I think she may have had a point in being concerned. It seems to me that 360 radial inbound to CPT would have taken you through the extreme edge of the CTR. Also the CTA steps down to 2000' on your track. Your track would have only left you 1000' below the CTA if you were flying at 1000' which would break Rule 5 at at leat one location.
In addition you must take into account the fact that the VOR tolerance is +/-5 deg. With that variance you could have been the CTR.
I think she may have had a point in being concerned. It seems to me that 360 radial inbound to CPT would have taken you through the extreme edge of the CTR. Also the CTA steps down to 2000' on your track. Your track would have only left you 1000' below the CTA if you were flying at 1000' which would break Rule 5 at at leat one location.
In addition you must take into account the fact that the VOR tolerance is +/-5 deg. With that variance you could have been the CTR.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I'm with HWD on this.
The NE corner is just over 30 miles from CPT and is smack on the 180 radial (not 000 as you put) so using the 1:60 rule and the allowed tolerance for a VOR, you could have been 2.5NM inside without knowing it.
However..... congratulations on not relying on a GPS
The NE corner is just over 30 miles from CPT and is smack on the 180 radial (not 000 as you put) so using the 1:60 rule and the allowed tolerance for a VOR, you could have been 2.5NM inside without knowing it.
However..... congratulations on not relying on a GPS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap40 has got it right - get a decent GPS. One can't rely on a VOR from that far away for the accuracy required to miss a corner of controlled airspace nearly 30 miles away. Especially with VOR receivers in "VFR" trainers, if this was a self fly hire plane. However, one gets a lot more press coverage if one busts CAS with a GPS
Having a DME and making sure one was at least say 10D to SAM would have been far better. If the airport in question has no VOR/DME but has an ILS, the ILS usually has a DME on the same frequency setting as the ILS.
Not sure of HWD's Rule 5 point though, relative to the ATCO's comment. It isn't up to ATC to query one's glide performance - even if they might be right.
However, I do know that occassionally ATC do claim a pilot is infringing when in fact he isn't YET - it's just his extended radar track happens to look like he might be soon.
Having a DME and making sure one was at least say 10D to SAM would have been far better. If the airport in question has no VOR/DME but has an ILS, the ILS usually has a DME on the same frequency setting as the ILS.
Not sure of HWD's Rule 5 point though, relative to the ATCO's comment. It isn't up to ATC to query one's glide performance - even if they might be right.
However, I do know that occassionally ATC do claim a pilot is infringing when in fact he isn't YET - it's just his extended radar track happens to look like he might be soon.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering why you were relying on a VOR 20 -30 miles away when SAM was just a few miles away and would have given you a much more accurate fix ?
Anyway you did the right thing by not arguing on the air. If you do have a problem regarding ATC they will always be happy to chat to you on the phone when you land.
Regards
FBW
Anyway you did the right thing by not arguing on the air. If you do have a problem regarding ATC they will always be happy to chat to you on the phone when you land.
Regards
FBW
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Io
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I experienced the very same thing on the same route recently. My track from the CPT VOR took me into the Farnborough MATZ. I then freecalled Solent APP who told me I had infringed Controlled Airspace. I felt reasonably sure I hadn't, but I am still relatively low timed and didn't feel confident enough to debate the point.
I did exactly as Shy Torque suggested, apologised and said I would make contact on reaching Bembridge. I duly contacted the Controller and he was certain I had entered his airspace, but would not make it official. It spoilt what had, up until then been a really good flight.
On reflection I still believe I was not in CA as I was at 1900' when told I was at fault (this takes me under the zone and my QNH was not questioned). However, I had the opportunity to visit Swanwick last year and having seen how busy the airspace is in the solent area, I guess it doesn't make things easy for controlloers when we are close to their area of operation.
As a point of interest I was not using GPS. (Wish I had!)
I did exactly as Shy Torque suggested, apologised and said I would make contact on reaching Bembridge. I duly contacted the Controller and he was certain I had entered his airspace, but would not make it official. It spoilt what had, up until then been a really good flight.
On reflection I still believe I was not in CA as I was at 1900' when told I was at fault (this takes me under the zone and my QNH was not questioned). However, I had the opportunity to visit Swanwick last year and having seen how busy the airspace is in the solent area, I guess it doesn't make things easy for controlloers when we are close to their area of operation.
As a point of interest I was not using GPS. (Wish I had!)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be inclined to submit to the ATC in this case but only due to the fact that my chart would probably be way out of date (as a matter of principle).
However, I wouldn't be talking to any-one as is my right. It is also your right to fly right up to and along the boundary of the airspace. I'm guessing you were flying VFR so you were of course looking out of the window and identifying the ground features which run along the boundary. To be conservative you could fly up the radial with a half scale fly left indication.
Some controllers don't like people getting close to their airspace. Do not tolerate incompetance.
A friend of mine got a phone call from a controller once for doing aerobatics 'close' to his ATZ including threat of reporting. Said friend promptly took off and returned to area and called up on frequency and asked to have his position confirmed on radar. Turns out he was where he said he was and having established this was outside of controlled airspace he asked why, then, he would be reported for it. When asked to call when he landed he pointed out that he wanted the situation on tape and for the tapes to be pulled. Never had a problem again.
But you've got to be sure you're right to do this.
However, I wouldn't be talking to any-one as is my right. It is also your right to fly right up to and along the boundary of the airspace. I'm guessing you were flying VFR so you were of course looking out of the window and identifying the ground features which run along the boundary. To be conservative you could fly up the radial with a half scale fly left indication.
Some controllers don't like people getting close to their airspace. Do not tolerate incompetance.
A friend of mine got a phone call from a controller once for doing aerobatics 'close' to his ATZ including threat of reporting. Said friend promptly took off and returned to area and called up on frequency and asked to have his position confirmed on radar. Turns out he was where he said he was and having established this was outside of controlled airspace he asked why, then, he would be reported for it. When asked to call when he landed he pointed out that he wanted the situation on tape and for the tapes to be pulled. Never had a problem again.
But you've got to be sure you're right to do this.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxFlyer....And when you landed at Bembridge you had a face like a hang dog!! Better not mention special branch at this point...... 
I have had the same problem with Solent controllers on a number of occassions and with more navigation gear than the space shuttle I HAVE been certain of my position. I think they extrapolate the radar trace and then use a potential bust as grounds to send people around the edge rather than deal with them.
The problem with Solent is they think they are Heathrow and dont want any of us "mere" hobby jockeys in there airpspace. "stay clear of controlled airpspace we have a jet leaving in a few minutes" is the common one, then 10 mins later you hear it go. Heathrow are just far enough apart for wake turbulance!
Conversly I have never been refused a transit by Heathrow and recently from Redhill got an overflight of the runways on a SVFR clearance in the twin. Does bring home just how busy Heathrow is!
Solent need to talk a long hard look at themselves and the service they provide as in mine and many other peoples view they are probably the most unhelpfull and rude of the controllers out there most of the time. Not to say it is all bad, somedays the service is very pleasant.
What I dont understand is how Bournemouth who I think are the same controllers are so much more cooperative (or seem to be)......
I have had the same problem with Solent controllers on a number of occassions and with more navigation gear than the space shuttle I HAVE been certain of my position. I think they extrapolate the radar trace and then use a potential bust as grounds to send people around the edge rather than deal with them.
The problem with Solent is they think they are Heathrow and dont want any of us "mere" hobby jockeys in there airpspace. "stay clear of controlled airpspace we have a jet leaving in a few minutes" is the common one, then 10 mins later you hear it go. Heathrow are just far enough apart for wake turbulance!
Conversly I have never been refused a transit by Heathrow and recently from Redhill got an overflight of the runways on a SVFR clearance in the twin. Does bring home just how busy Heathrow is!
Solent need to talk a long hard look at themselves and the service they provide as in mine and many other peoples view they are probably the most unhelpfull and rude of the controllers out there most of the time. Not to say it is all bad, somedays the service is very pleasant.
What I dont understand is how Bournemouth who I think are the same controllers are so much more cooperative (or seem to be)......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAM wouldn't have been any good for that (keeping clear of Southampton's CTR) unless the man had a DME.
I agree that extrapolation of radar tracks seems to be a problem. It happens especially when switching the autopilot from HDG mode to NAV mode, when the track changes for a while while the AP is sorting out the wind correction. A radar controller could see some weird extrapolations...
I agree that extrapolation of radar tracks seems to be a problem. It happens especially when switching the autopilot from HDG mode to NAV mode, when the track changes for a while while the AP is sorting out the wind correction. A radar controller could see some weird extrapolations...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just out of interest you did not say whether or not the ATCO had identified you on radar, if not then how could they be certain-personally I need to make very sure the aircraft I am about to admonish is the correct one !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAM wouldn't have been any good for that (keeping clear of Southampton's CTR) unless the man had a DME
But I think we can safely assume the AC was fitted with a DME. If it wasn't then SAM would still have been the preffered VOR for establishing your position using cross cuts
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Isle 6, Dairy produce
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My position was never in doubt. I didn't need the SAM VOR for position fix and I was tracking to the CPT then DTY VORs . Looking back at other posts I can appreciate the controllers position. She was incredibly busy and imo just needed an excuse to get rid of me to ease workload. My track would indeed have taken me very close to her CTA/R and it would have taken time out of her day to make sure I didn't deviate from my heading.
I refuse to use GPS for the time being. I've spent so long learning 1940's technology, I thought I'd make the most of it first
I refuse to use GPS for the time being. I've spent so long learning 1940's technology, I thought I'd make the most of it first
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar one when routing from Glenrothes (sorry, Fife International!) to Cumbernauld direct (around 1500 ft QNH). Was on Glenrothes frequency until abeam Kelty, around 1 mile N of Kelty (with DME to EDI showing around 11.5 nm), and transferred to Scottish Info.
Scottish Info said that EDI were trying to call me, who said that I was in their airspace - I expressed surprise, as I was at least 1.5 miles outside the zone, but didn't make a fight of it and took their clearance / squawk to the flare stack at Grangetown / Kincardine Bridge. I may have been approaching their TMA, which is Class E, but was not planning to enter it.
Talking to a friend who was an ATCO at EDI a few months later during a visit to EDI ATC, he said that due to the blurring of primary returns, it was difficult to assess the exact position of GA aircraft in relation to zone boundaries. Established practice if in any doubt was to accuse the pilot of being in controlled airspace and let him / her defend himself!
Scottish Info said that EDI were trying to call me, who said that I was in their airspace - I expressed surprise, as I was at least 1.5 miles outside the zone, but didn't make a fight of it and took their clearance / squawk to the flare stack at Grangetown / Kincardine Bridge. I may have been approaching their TMA, which is Class E, but was not planning to enter it.
Talking to a friend who was an ATCO at EDI a few months later during a visit to EDI ATC, he said that due to the blurring of primary returns, it was difficult to assess the exact position of GA aircraft in relation to zone boundaries. Established practice if in any doubt was to accuse the pilot of being in controlled airspace and let him / her defend himself!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a similar experience with Luton a few months ago. I was routing round to the East of the zone, flying VFR in excellent visibility and with full sight of ground features. I had another pilot with me who was helping with navigation and we were both 100% certain that we were outside the zone. When asking to leave the frequency some distance further on, I was surprised to be told by the controller that I had infringed the zone. I politely responded that I did not believe that I had done so and was told "Well it doesn't matter, no harm done." I didn't want to make an issue of it, but both I and my co-pilot were puzzled and irritated and wondered if we had been confused with another aircraft.
On an earlier occasion when approaching the Cardiff zone, I was unexpectedly asked by the controller to confirm that I was squawking 7000, and responded "Affirm". His response was "Are you sure?" to which I replied "That's what the instrument says". I heard him then contact another aircraft to ask the same question, at which point it was confirmed that the other aircraft was transmitting 7700. He then became the target of the controller's wrath and I was left alone.
Both experiences made me realise that it may sometimes be difficult for controllers to tell the difference between aircraft, or that, like the rest of us, they occasionally make mistakes.
On an earlier occasion when approaching the Cardiff zone, I was unexpectedly asked by the controller to confirm that I was squawking 7000, and responded "Affirm". His response was "Are you sure?" to which I replied "That's what the instrument says". I heard him then contact another aircraft to ask the same question, at which point it was confirmed that the other aircraft was transmitting 7700. He then became the target of the controller's wrath and I was left alone.
Both experiences made me realise that it may sometimes be difficult for controllers to tell the difference between aircraft, or that, like the rest of us, they occasionally make mistakes.