Zone Infringements - why ?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
From: UK
This is about GA infringements hence why I am asking the GA fraternity for any responses.
WR, yes we have zone infringer's at Cardiff, not to the same extent as many others but that is potentially because if we see an aircraft about to infringe we tell them either to adjust their heading or give a clearance through.
This is not about specific zones but about looking at why they may occur , I have had through the various forums some well observed comments, thank you to those taking the time.
WR, yes we have zone infringer's at Cardiff, not to the same extent as many others but that is potentially because if we see an aircraft about to infringe we tell them either to adjust their heading or give a clearance through.
This is not about specific zones but about looking at why they may occur , I have had through the various forums some well observed comments, thank you to those taking the time.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: wherever I lay my headset
if there is a readily available surface feature (road/river/coastline) just outside the calculated boundaries of the protected airspace, extend the boundary to that feature
Furthermore CAS is designed (believe it or not) to be the minimum possible/acceptable size... start stretching it to a convenient VOR radial, or so it follows the M25 and you'll lose a sizeable chunk of Class G across the whole country.
Like Chilli says, there isn't enough money in the kitty to fund LARS as it stands, who out there thinks it'd be a good idea if ATC charged for LARS?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
slim_slag
There is a distinction to be made between
a) having problems reading a chart, and
b) navigation
It has been suggested by some that a) is responsible for some infringements, hence my comment that CAA charts are clear enough.
There is a distinction to be made between
a) having problems reading a chart, and
b) navigation
It has been suggested by some that a) is responsible for some infringements, hence my comment that CAA charts are clear enough.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
Planning and practice.
I have never had a problem using CAA charts. I choose not to use half mils, but that is a matter of personal choice and it suits the flying I do. Quarter mils are great because there is generally some feature that you can pick up during planning that you can use to avoid the zone. Peculiarly shaped bits of forest, lake, town - draw a black line around it to highlight it on the chart and know where you have to be relative to it to stay clear. Simple. Just as a matter of interest, how are fixed wing pilots taught to navigate? Is it literally just compass and stop watch or do you feature hop?
Or buy a decent GPS and learn how to use it before you take it flying. But wait a minute (and I apologise IO540 if this has been thought of before) has anyone bothered to check that a) GPS charts are coincident with the CAA charts or b) are the overlays used on the radar in the right place? Stupid I know, but has anyone thought to check it?
I have never had a problem using CAA charts. I choose not to use half mils, but that is a matter of personal choice and it suits the flying I do. Quarter mils are great because there is generally some feature that you can pick up during planning that you can use to avoid the zone. Peculiarly shaped bits of forest, lake, town - draw a black line around it to highlight it on the chart and know where you have to be relative to it to stay clear. Simple. Just as a matter of interest, how are fixed wing pilots taught to navigate? Is it literally just compass and stop watch or do you feature hop?
Or buy a decent GPS and learn how to use it before you take it flying. But wait a minute (and I apologise IO540 if this has been thought of before) has anyone bothered to check that a) GPS charts are coincident with the CAA charts or b) are the overlays used on the radar in the right place? Stupid I know, but has anyone thought to check it?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
A moving map GPS is largely self-checking.
You switch it on; within a minute or two it captures enough satellites to do a fix, and the map centres on your position. My preflight check includes a) zooming right in and checking that the position shown (sitting on some place on the airport) is correct and b) the GPS altitude is within say 50ft of actual.
Then I set it to something like 20nm full-scale and fly off.
Accuracy of the database datum isn't an issue; that's all done for you.
After loading a route, the route is displayed on the map and one checks it for gross errors; one may have to zoom out to say 1000nm full-scale to see the whole of a 700nm route, obviously.
Can't speak for radar calibration but imagine they do it by flying a plane with a GPS (and a DME) in it around the boundary
Regarding radar, I've occassionally been accused of infringing when I knew I wasn't (GPS and DME), but could see that the controller was concerned about the *projected* radar track which would infringe if I stayed on it. I got this once from Lyneham; phoned them afterwards and they admitted they do this to "VFR pilots" who often infringe in droves
You switch it on; within a minute or two it captures enough satellites to do a fix, and the map centres on your position. My preflight check includes a) zooming right in and checking that the position shown (sitting on some place on the airport) is correct and b) the GPS altitude is within say 50ft of actual.
Then I set it to something like 20nm full-scale and fly off.
Accuracy of the database datum isn't an issue; that's all done for you.
After loading a route, the route is displayed on the map and one checks it for gross errors; one may have to zoom out to say 1000nm full-scale to see the whole of a 700nm route, obviously.
Can't speak for radar calibration but imagine they do it by flying a plane with a GPS (and a DME) in it around the boundary
Regarding radar, I've occassionally been accused of infringing when I knew I wasn't (GPS and DME), but could see that the controller was concerned about the *projected* radar track which would infringe if I stayed on it. I got this once from Lyneham; phoned them afterwards and they admitted they do this to "VFR pilots" who often infringe in droves
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
Flower - I did not understand from your first post here that it related only to GA CAS infringements, so my post was off track. May I ask if the NATS working group you describe is similarly charged with looking at GA only? Is there any group looking at other CAS busts?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Pierre, of course I will not be able to see the river if I am above clouds. But it will also invalidate the navigation method you intend to replace mine with, you will pick a visual feature outside the CAS, mine will be the boundary.
How many GA people fly VFR above clouds in the UK? Perhaps the vast majority who don't fly above clounds will be helped by making the boundary follow surface features, and we are after all only giving suggestions.
Your method of following a feature outside CAS will, for all practical purposes, reduce the amount of class G as putting the boundary on the river. So no difference from me there either.
I have no idea how they calculate the boundaries of CAS, but looking at the southern england chart, there appears to be a lot of it places I would not expect it. It has most certainly not been designed with VFR traffic in mind, and the designers should therefore share some of the blame (only a little) for zone infringements.
Far easier than describing the zone boundary as a wavering line (following the River Piddle) to an IFR pilot who cannot see the ground.
How would you describe the boundaries of the gatwick surface zone to an IFR pilot, if he had any interest in knowing?
How many GA people fly VFR above clouds in the UK? Perhaps the vast majority who don't fly above clounds will be helped by making the boundary follow surface features, and we are after all only giving suggestions.
Your method of following a feature outside CAS will, for all practical purposes, reduce the amount of class G as putting the boundary on the river. So no difference from me there either.
I have no idea how they calculate the boundaries of CAS, but looking at the southern england chart, there appears to be a lot of it places I would not expect it. It has most certainly not been designed with VFR traffic in mind, and the designers should therefore share some of the blame (only a little) for zone infringements.
Far easier than describing the zone boundary as a wavering line (following the River Piddle) to an IFR pilot who cannot see the ground.
How would you describe the boundaries of the gatwick surface zone to an IFR pilot, if he had any interest in knowing?
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
IO540,
I am sure that the GPs is sufficiently accurate and all the automatic checking is done for you but.....
By who? By using what method?
What I am trying to say is has anyone checked that when you are flying "hard up" against a zone boundary as displayed on the moving map, you are not the wrong side of the line on a radar screen. Someone might have had a bad day at Jepps writing in the airpsace data? Or is it that the positional accuracy of the radar is no longer as good as GPS.
Or have we another scenario where ATC anticipates a likely infingement, ie if current heading is maintained, but the aircraft turns away at the last moment - does that count as an infringement? Especially if there is no radio contact. May be the problem is that there is a difference of interpretation?
Flower,
The bottom line here is that there is a whole heap of issues here and your posts are very open. What sort of infringements are we talking about? Perpendicular zone penetrations deep into CAS, or are we talking "glancing blows"? Have NATS stopped to think that it might have something to do with them? For instance are radars accurate enough to pick up which side of the line a contact is? Moreover is there is a difference between what a pilot would consider an infringement and what ATC would report?
IMHO if you want some constructive input from the GA community, you are going to have to be a bit more expansive on the issue.
Here is a few points for starters....
- What is the ATC definition of infringement.
- What are the statistics
- How many infringements involve a penetration of less than 1 or 0.5 nm
- What investigation has NATS already done.
- Is one area more prone than others.
- Have NATS checked that all e charts, paper charts etc are the same?
I am not trying to critise what NATS do by any means, or trying to belittle what Flower is trying to achieve (I think the effort is admirable). Just more information please!
I am sure that the GPs is sufficiently accurate and all the automatic checking is done for you but.....
Accuracy of the database datum isn't an issue; that's all done for you.
What I am trying to say is has anyone checked that when you are flying "hard up" against a zone boundary as displayed on the moving map, you are not the wrong side of the line on a radar screen. Someone might have had a bad day at Jepps writing in the airpsace data? Or is it that the positional accuracy of the radar is no longer as good as GPS.
Or have we another scenario where ATC anticipates a likely infingement, ie if current heading is maintained, but the aircraft turns away at the last moment - does that count as an infringement? Especially if there is no radio contact. May be the problem is that there is a difference of interpretation?
Flower,
The bottom line here is that there is a whole heap of issues here and your posts are very open. What sort of infringements are we talking about? Perpendicular zone penetrations deep into CAS, or are we talking "glancing blows"? Have NATS stopped to think that it might have something to do with them? For instance are radars accurate enough to pick up which side of the line a contact is? Moreover is there is a difference between what a pilot would consider an infringement and what ATC would report?
IMHO if you want some constructive input from the GA community, you are going to have to be a bit more expansive on the issue.
Here is a few points for starters....
- What is the ATC definition of infringement.
- What are the statistics
- How many infringements involve a penetration of less than 1 or 0.5 nm
- What investigation has NATS already done.
- Is one area more prone than others.
- Have NATS checked that all e charts, paper charts etc are the same?
I am not trying to critise what NATS do by any means, or trying to belittle what Flower is trying to achieve (I think the effort is admirable). Just more information please!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The CAA charts are exemplary for clarity and lack of ambiguity.
I noticed during my night qual, many moons ago, that all the red stuff on the chart is rendered invisible with a red torch/dome light at night. Maybe another colour is in order. Never mind the roads being handy for navigation, but the airways are an obvious potential problem.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
From: UK
This is purely an exercise on my part and not that of the working groups. I am not part of that group but have been asked for my input from them. I wanted a Vox Pop I suppose of how you view infringements and why they may happen. It is nothing more than that. I shall be submitting a report but this post itself is not in anyway official and should not be considered as such.
Should the working group decide to open up this subject to the GA fraternity it will come with terms of reference and go through the appropriate channels.
There are some extremely interesting views and thank you for them.
Should the working group decide to open up this subject to the GA fraternity it will come with terms of reference and go through the appropriate channels.
There are some extremely interesting views and thank you for them.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Droopystop
You make a valid theoretical point but when working at this level one has to trust somebody! Jeppesen do have errors in their data but much of the commercial world uses their approach plates, in either printed or electronic format, their data gets loaded into FMS systems, every aviation IFR GPS uses it, and this wide usage means that if a major error crept in (which has happened) it gets picked up and fixed fast.
Even the CAA charts have errors; they have huge masts missing for example.
And electronic data is much more likely to be correct, at any randomly chosen point in time, than paper charts that get "fixed" some months before going to print and then they are in all the shops for the next 12 months.
I have seen massive errors in CAS depiction in printed charts in France (IGN, Jepp were seriously wrong, SIA were OK) and these would have persisted for up to a year, whereas in electronic data they got corrected within the 28-day cycle.
You probably also refer to a general issue of map accuracy. The way this is done depends on whether the database is described as objects (each with lat/long data attached to it) or whether it is a bitmap. In the former case the calibration is taken care of implicitly, and will be right provided the database is right. In the latter case one has to calibrate the bitmap by marking several points on it and entering the coordinates for them; however this is rare in aviation units because nearly all use the Jepp vector data, not bitmaps (the Memory Map PDA-based product is one exception).
If you want to know about bitmap calibration, look up www.oziexplorer.com. It takes me only minutes to calibrate a scan of an entire country map, to within a fraction of a mile all over. In fact the surveying itself it likely to be far worse than that!
In all cases, one obviously assumes the GPS receiver is returning the correct position but there are so few players in this market this isn't normally a problem. The SIRF chipset is known to return GPS altitude 200ft too high, but one soon spots that!
A properly designed GPS is supposed to detect when the fix isn't good enough (or is entirely lost) and it displays a "NO SATELLITE RECEPTION" or similar message. Anecdotal evidence suggests the really old units (e.g. the Garmin 195, now over 10 years old) have bugs which cause a loss of fix without the warning appearing.
"Or have we another scenario where ATC anticipates a likely infingement, ie if current heading is maintained, but the aircraft turns away at the last moment - does that count as an infringement"
NO, but they might pretend to the pilot otherwise. It certainly makes them nervous.
Flower
I suggest someone correlates infringements with GPS usage, types of equipment, pilot currency with it. Without this, you will never get anywhere. Human IQ has hardly changed in the last 50,000 years, PPL training will never get any better (and will get worse as GA activity slowly reduces) so modernisation is the only way.
You make a valid theoretical point but when working at this level one has to trust somebody! Jeppesen do have errors in their data but much of the commercial world uses their approach plates, in either printed or electronic format, their data gets loaded into FMS systems, every aviation IFR GPS uses it, and this wide usage means that if a major error crept in (which has happened) it gets picked up and fixed fast.
Even the CAA charts have errors; they have huge masts missing for example.
And electronic data is much more likely to be correct, at any randomly chosen point in time, than paper charts that get "fixed" some months before going to print and then they are in all the shops for the next 12 months.
I have seen massive errors in CAS depiction in printed charts in France (IGN, Jepp were seriously wrong, SIA were OK) and these would have persisted for up to a year, whereas in electronic data they got corrected within the 28-day cycle.
You probably also refer to a general issue of map accuracy. The way this is done depends on whether the database is described as objects (each with lat/long data attached to it) or whether it is a bitmap. In the former case the calibration is taken care of implicitly, and will be right provided the database is right. In the latter case one has to calibrate the bitmap by marking several points on it and entering the coordinates for them; however this is rare in aviation units because nearly all use the Jepp vector data, not bitmaps (the Memory Map PDA-based product is one exception).
If you want to know about bitmap calibration, look up www.oziexplorer.com. It takes me only minutes to calibrate a scan of an entire country map, to within a fraction of a mile all over. In fact the surveying itself it likely to be far worse than that!
In all cases, one obviously assumes the GPS receiver is returning the correct position but there are so few players in this market this isn't normally a problem. The SIRF chipset is known to return GPS altitude 200ft too high, but one soon spots that!
A properly designed GPS is supposed to detect when the fix isn't good enough (or is entirely lost) and it displays a "NO SATELLITE RECEPTION" or similar message. Anecdotal evidence suggests the really old units (e.g. the Garmin 195, now over 10 years old) have bugs which cause a loss of fix without the warning appearing.
"Or have we another scenario where ATC anticipates a likely infingement, ie if current heading is maintained, but the aircraft turns away at the last moment - does that count as an infringement"
NO, but they might pretend to the pilot otherwise. It certainly makes them nervous.
Flower
I suggest someone correlates infringements with GPS usage, types of equipment, pilot currency with it. Without this, you will never get anywhere. Human IQ has hardly changed in the last 50,000 years, PPL training will never get any better (and will get worse as GA activity slowly reduces) so modernisation is the only way.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: wherever I lay my headset
IMHO IOS40 makes a valid point about increase in GPS use... The kit is fantastic, but like all hardware only as good as the liveware input. Yes it'll tell you how to fly from A - B in a straightline, and keep you advised how many feet left/right/above track you stray... but I feel that leads pilots to think its OK to skirt too close to the boundaries of Zones.
There is no definition of an infringement (too obvious to bother I would have thought) and I can certainly recall arguements with pilots over the radio as to whether they'd infirnged a zone or not... one actually stating he was 0.1nm clear.
The fact is as a controller I use a radar, that probably doesn't display to that level of accuracy, to separate aircraft. That's my concern, not whether an aircraft is in or out of the zone... so the decimal places don't mean much to me other than whether I can control YOU or not? Actually, when cross-checked with a precision source the stroppy pilot who claimed he was clear of the zone was actually 0.25nms inside it... because he had misinterpretted the zone origin... back to my original point, would he have considered going that close without GPS... I doubt it?
There is no definition of an infringement (too obvious to bother I would have thought) and I can certainly recall arguements with pilots over the radio as to whether they'd infirnged a zone or not... one actually stating he was 0.1nm clear.
The fact is as a controller I use a radar, that probably doesn't display to that level of accuracy, to separate aircraft. That's my concern, not whether an aircraft is in or out of the zone... so the decimal places don't mean much to me other than whether I can control YOU or not? Actually, when cross-checked with a precision source the stroppy pilot who claimed he was clear of the zone was actually 0.25nms inside it... because he had misinterpretted the zone origin... back to my original point, would he have considered going that close without GPS... I doubt it?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
"would he have considered going that close without GPS"
Probably not; in fact he would probably have stayed on the ground, or did a (very) local burger run instead. Soon he would have got fed up with that sort of relatively pointless flying, and left aviation for good.
That's one innovative solution to CAS busts - reduce the number of people flying!
Or force people to stick to useless local flights only, where they know e.g. the M25 just happens to mark the CAS boundary.
The job here is to deliver a more reliable navigation solution. As I say, no use looking at training or "pilot quality"; those will never get better.
Probably not; in fact he would probably have stayed on the ground, or did a (very) local burger run instead. Soon he would have got fed up with that sort of relatively pointless flying, and left aviation for good.
That's one innovative solution to CAS busts - reduce the number of people flying!
Or force people to stick to useless local flights only, where they know e.g. the M25 just happens to mark the CAS boundary.
The job here is to deliver a more reliable navigation solution. As I say, no use looking at training or "pilot quality"; those will never get better.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
If one reads many of the posts here, one can pick up a general trend that I believe can be the cause of many infringements. That being that in general pilots who have to go round some airspace want to get as close as possible to the boundary and thus minimise the track distances involved.
The CAA recomend that pilots try to miss zone boundaries by 5nm laterally (the 5nm allowing for navigation errors). Even on a 90 deg turn this would only add a few miles to the track and less than 5 minutes to the total time.
GPS users must be aware that even approved IFR panel mounted units are RNP5 - they only keep you within 5nm of track. So why use a handheld to try and stay within 1nm or less of track.
Another reason for infringements of various airspace is the use of QFE and RPS and giving VFR enroute flights the option to use Altitudes above the Transition Altitude.
On a related point, if somewhere like Lyneham Radar observes a slow moving primary track cross their zone West to East, do they report an infringement or do they assume that the primary return is above their zone?
Regards,
DFC
The CAA recomend that pilots try to miss zone boundaries by 5nm laterally (the 5nm allowing for navigation errors). Even on a 90 deg turn this would only add a few miles to the track and less than 5 minutes to the total time.
GPS users must be aware that even approved IFR panel mounted units are RNP5 - they only keep you within 5nm of track. So why use a handheld to try and stay within 1nm or less of track.
Another reason for infringements of various airspace is the use of QFE and RPS and giving VFR enroute flights the option to use Altitudes above the Transition Altitude.
On a related point, if somewhere like Lyneham Radar observes a slow moving primary track cross their zone West to East, do they report an infringement or do they assume that the primary return is above their zone?
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
My flight yesterday took me close to 2 areas of CAS and the weather was cr**, or should I say very poor. My navigation is usually very good and as I use VOR, NDB, DME all crossed checked with GPS I can usually be pretty sure where I am. Now the point is one controller gave me a RIS which helped enormously for the odd bit of weather avoidance and he was happy that he knew who I was and where I was and if required could enter his zone at a predertmined level.
The other just gave the usual response of "stand by and remain clear etc." Now I have no problem with the second but it would perhaps have been more helpful to both sides if he could have found the time to just check what I was expecting (I do not know how busy he was of course since I could only hear the frequency on which I called ) and then advise. He would have at least been equipped with the knowledge that I was UNDER his CAS and he needed to do nothing about me. Perhaps may have even alleviated a possible "infringement" report. Earlier someone asked about the traffic that goes under or over CAS. If you are a controller not working them do you automatically assume (if no height read out available) they are clear?
The other just gave the usual response of "stand by and remain clear etc." Now I have no problem with the second but it would perhaps have been more helpful to both sides if he could have found the time to just check what I was expecting (I do not know how busy he was of course since I could only hear the frequency on which I called ) and then advise. He would have at least been equipped with the knowledge that I was UNDER his CAS and he needed to do nothing about me. Perhaps may have even alleviated a possible "infringement" report. Earlier someone asked about the traffic that goes under or over CAS. If you are a controller not working them do you automatically assume (if no height read out available) they are clear?
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
CAA Occurrence 200505672
BE90 King Air. Alleged infringement of the London CTR.
The pilot believed that he had navigated around the CTR. Three days after this incident the route was reflown with an ATC staff member on board. On this occasion, the aircraft also established communication with London SVFR as a safeguard. The primary navigation tool was a GPS. The aircraft tracked west until it reached the eastern extremity of the Wycombe ATZ before turning onto a track of 190 degrees. This should have kept the aircraft clear of the Heathrow CTR. However it became evident from observation on radar that this turn was taking the aircraft into the CTR. Analysis has shown that the software used on the GPS had not illustrated the London CTR accurately and had also shown the Wycombe ATZ as having a wider radius than it actually has. Thus when the aircraft commenced the turn at the Wycombe ATZ as indicated on the GPS it was turning too early and infringing the CTR. The pilot will now use alternative navigation strategies when tracking around the Heathrow CTR.
The above example comprises all of what I believe are the common causes of infringements - 1. Trying to cut it too fine round the edge, 2. Over reliance on GPS, and 3. A patchy ATS.
---------
IO540,
Read the above again. I know that you are sure it won't happen to you and that is fine! The rest of us will just stick to padding the safety margins!
Regards,
DFC
BE90 King Air. Alleged infringement of the London CTR.
The pilot believed that he had navigated around the CTR. Three days after this incident the route was reflown with an ATC staff member on board. On this occasion, the aircraft also established communication with London SVFR as a safeguard. The primary navigation tool was a GPS. The aircraft tracked west until it reached the eastern extremity of the Wycombe ATZ before turning onto a track of 190 degrees. This should have kept the aircraft clear of the Heathrow CTR. However it became evident from observation on radar that this turn was taking the aircraft into the CTR. Analysis has shown that the software used on the GPS had not illustrated the London CTR accurately and had also shown the Wycombe ATZ as having a wider radius than it actually has. Thus when the aircraft commenced the turn at the Wycombe ATZ as indicated on the GPS it was turning too early and infringing the CTR. The pilot will now use alternative navigation strategies when tracking around the Heathrow CTR.
The above example comprises all of what I believe are the common causes of infringements - 1. Trying to cut it too fine round the edge, 2. Over reliance on GPS, and 3. A patchy ATS.
---------
IO540,
Read the above again. I know that you are sure it won't happen to you and that is fine! The rest of us will just stick to padding the safety margins!
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
"Analysis has shown that the software used on the GPS had not illustrated the London CTR accurately and had also shown the Wycombe ATZ as having a wider radius than it actually has. "
If you could provide the make, model, database of the GPS that might be useful, to somebody perhaps.
But what does a database error have to do with your alleged GPS-inherent error of up to 5nm?
You are wasting your time, DFC, totally and completely. Because for every GPS database error you can dig up (and I can dig up one or two myself, from bits of Europe too remote to bother most UK PPLs) anybody in ATC can dig up THOUSANDS of infringements caused by IGNORANCE of modern navigation methods (known as "good airmanship" by the old farts).
Touch wood, I have never been lost, even for a moment, and the only time I have infringed CAS was when climbing/descending when I just clipped the three-dimensional corner of where it changes level. I've done that quite a few times.
(I've busted a certain foreign TRA, which in those days didn't show up on Notam.)
But every time I fly some distance I hear a number of pilots who are clearly lost. It's good luck that there is a lot of Class G around. They usually sounds well overloaded so one must assume they are exercising proper airmanship.
"The pilot will now use alternative navigation strategies when tracking around the Heathrow CTR."
Well he had to say that, in his grovelling letter to Captain Somebody (Ret'd) at the CAA; the one with the really posh fountain pen with a 1.5mm wide nib, whose job is to write stroppy letters to people who the CAA doesn't prosecute. Still, it's a lot better to grovel than to get done, especially if a certain foreign CAA is involved.
Tell me, DFC, what "navigation strategies" would a King Air be using instead? I can just see the ATP (likely 2x) going to Transair to buy a stopwatch, a CRAP-1 slide rule... I suppose he could have flown a DME arc (autopilot coupled) all the way round
If you could provide the make, model, database of the GPS that might be useful, to somebody perhaps.
But what does a database error have to do with your alleged GPS-inherent error of up to 5nm?
You are wasting your time, DFC, totally and completely. Because for every GPS database error you can dig up (and I can dig up one or two myself, from bits of Europe too remote to bother most UK PPLs) anybody in ATC can dig up THOUSANDS of infringements caused by IGNORANCE of modern navigation methods (known as "good airmanship" by the old farts).
Touch wood, I have never been lost, even for a moment, and the only time I have infringed CAS was when climbing/descending when I just clipped the three-dimensional corner of where it changes level. I've done that quite a few times.
(I've busted a certain foreign TRA, which in those days didn't show up on Notam.)
But every time I fly some distance I hear a number of pilots who are clearly lost. It's good luck that there is a lot of Class G around. They usually sounds well overloaded so one must assume they are exercising proper airmanship.
"The pilot will now use alternative navigation strategies when tracking around the Heathrow CTR."
Well he had to say that, in his grovelling letter to Captain Somebody (Ret'd) at the CAA; the one with the really posh fountain pen with a 1.5mm wide nib, whose job is to write stroppy letters to people who the CAA doesn't prosecute. Still, it's a lot better to grovel than to get done, especially if a certain foreign CAA is involved.
Tell me, DFC, what "navigation strategies" would a King Air be using instead? I can just see the ATP (likely 2x) going to Transair to buy a stopwatch, a CRAP-1 slide rule... I suppose he could have flown a DME arc (autopilot coupled) all the way round
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: Uk
All this talk of GPS.
Is it part of the PPL course? No.
Is it part of the CPL course? Yes - but only frequencies, RAIM etc.
Maybe if the syllabus recognised modern navigation aids then there might be less zone busts.
GPS position errors are now potentially within a few feet - possibly this is more accurate than radar.
My suggestion - teach people to use the huge advantages of GPS proactively - incorporate it into the PPL syllabus.
Around Stanstead (cos you are never ever ever going to get a FIS) it is fun to fly just outside the zone and not talk to them.
How about a VFR GPS VRP database (I love acronyms). That would probably reduce zone busts by 50%. Then include GPS navigation in the PPL training - that would probably reduce zone busts by another 49.9%
Of all the people viewing this thread who has had proper training regarding the use of GPS? Maybe a poll is in order.
Flame away
Is it part of the PPL course? No.
Is it part of the CPL course? Yes - but only frequencies, RAIM etc.
Maybe if the syllabus recognised modern navigation aids then there might be less zone busts.
GPS position errors are now potentially within a few feet - possibly this is more accurate than radar.
My suggestion - teach people to use the huge advantages of GPS proactively - incorporate it into the PPL syllabus.
Around Stanstead (cos you are never ever ever going to get a FIS) it is fun to fly just outside the zone and not talk to them.
How about a VFR GPS VRP database (I love acronyms). That would probably reduce zone busts by 50%. Then include GPS navigation in the PPL training - that would probably reduce zone busts by another 49.9%
Of all the people viewing this thread who has had proper training regarding the use of GPS? Maybe a poll is in order.
Flame away