Zone Infringements - why ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
mm_flynn,
The challenge for the Heathrow people is that the London Zone, being Class A, needs you to be separated by 3nm and/or 1,000ft from anything else in the Zone.
So if say someone beat you to it and was coming in the opposite direction via Ascot and Burnham, there isn't enough room available to apply the separation standards and accomodate you southbound at the same time.
EGLF would have to co-ordinate with EGLL before clearing you in to the London Zone, they are not allowed to do so off their own back, so whatever was in the way to stop your intital transit must have moved out of the way by the time you were cleared in by EGLF.
WF.
The challenge for the Heathrow people is that the London Zone, being Class A, needs you to be separated by 3nm and/or 1,000ft from anything else in the Zone.
So if say someone beat you to it and was coming in the opposite direction via Ascot and Burnham, there isn't enough room available to apply the separation standards and accomodate you southbound at the same time.
EGLF would have to co-ordinate with EGLL before clearing you in to the London Zone, they are not allowed to do so off their own back, so whatever was in the way to stop your intital transit must have moved out of the way by the time you were cleared in by EGLF.
WF.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this impression might be driven by the very binary nature of airspace and control in the UK. There seems to be absolute control and bandit country. The blending of levels of control and freedom that exist in many other countries doesn't really happen. Therefore, CAT pilots and controllers trying to control/operate in bandit country (i.e. EGLF) have a bigger challenge and the duty of care philosophy results in Class D being treated almost as Class B.
The ease with which a VFR pilot can fly through anything (below Class A) in the rest of Europe (except Switzerland, IME) is astonishing and an absolute eye opener. And this includes e.g. Brussels, some of the busiest airspace around.
It can't be the traffic, it must be different attitudes.
I suppose the UK gets away with it because of the plentiful Class G. So one can always pretend that VFR traffic (and sub-airways IFR traffic too) never needs to get clearances, so why bother to give them?
After all, all the pilots need is to navigate accurately !! A fair enough attitude, OK for me and the others who have all the proper nav kit and know how to fly A-B-C-D-E but the training syllabus and establishment are still firmly stuck in WW1 practices.
I know I've said this before but IMO the only reason the situation is able to continue is because most PPLs chuck in flying very soon. So the situation never really needs to be addressed. Which is just as well because.... what is the solution?? Mandatory GPS is the only way, and nobody in the training business wants that.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR
Depends on the objective. If the objective is to eliminate CAS busts then some sort of highly reliable navigation is required.
It isn't going to be achieved with better training. Just how much more training can you stuff into somebody who keeps forgetting to reset/start the stopwatch, or flies just 10 hours/year and cannot fly an accurate heading, or is flying a plane whose knackered DI drifts 10 degrees every 10 minutes... I would be busting CAS all the time if I had to fly like that, yet that is the only option for a typical new PPL!
It could be achieved with radar, mandatory Mode S, mandatory radio contact, etc, but nobody will pay for the radars or the personnel. And it would be silly.
I think one could eliminate practically all CAS busts if every plane had a decent large colour moving map GPS (not a GNS430 - map is far too small) with a current database, preferably showing a copy of the printed CAA chart.
There are other little things like elimination of RPS and QFE and getting everyone to fly on QNH only.
It won't happen, but there is no reason to not talk about it
Depends on the objective. If the objective is to eliminate CAS busts then some sort of highly reliable navigation is required.
It isn't going to be achieved with better training. Just how much more training can you stuff into somebody who keeps forgetting to reset/start the stopwatch, or flies just 10 hours/year and cannot fly an accurate heading, or is flying a plane whose knackered DI drifts 10 degrees every 10 minutes... I would be busting CAS all the time if I had to fly like that, yet that is the only option for a typical new PPL!
It could be achieved with radar, mandatory Mode S, mandatory radio contact, etc, but nobody will pay for the radars or the personnel. And it would be silly.
I think one could eliminate practically all CAS busts if every plane had a decent large colour moving map GPS (not a GNS430 - map is far too small) with a current database, preferably showing a copy of the printed CAA chart.
There are other little things like elimination of RPS and QFE and getting everyone to fly on QNH only.
It won't happen, but there is no reason to not talk about it
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not support the mandatory use of GPS. It is entirely possible and sensible to navigate accurately using only visual references.
I would support mandatory GPS training as part of the PPL syllabus.
The problem with visual references as the sole means of navigation is that it is a skill that needs to be well taught and regularly practised. The syllabus does not provide sufficient time to teach the skill. I believe this is entirely correct because the syllabus is already long enough. On the other hand there is time within the existing syllabus to introduce to pilots the use and shortcomings of GPS.
A moving map GPS supported by proper training on how to prevent a course being incorrectly entered and executed and supported by visual navigation is almost foolproof and certainly and awful lot more foolproof than anything else available to the average PPL.
Of course it is not perfect and zone infringements will still occur. However in my opinion they would be an awful lot fewer.
GA vitally needs this culture change. GPS is one of the most important pieces of equipment in the cockpit both as a navigational aid but also as a very good means of getting yourself out of trouble. It is also one of the least expensive pieces of kit. I simply have no idea why anyone would want to fly without a moving map GPS even if it was only there as a backup to visual navigation, unless you had complete confidence in your visual navigation in all circumstances (and I accept there are a few who would be able to meet that criteria).
I would support mandatory GPS training as part of the PPL syllabus.
The problem with visual references as the sole means of navigation is that it is a skill that needs to be well taught and regularly practised. The syllabus does not provide sufficient time to teach the skill. I believe this is entirely correct because the syllabus is already long enough. On the other hand there is time within the existing syllabus to introduce to pilots the use and shortcomings of GPS.
A moving map GPS supported by proper training on how to prevent a course being incorrectly entered and executed and supported by visual navigation is almost foolproof and certainly and awful lot more foolproof than anything else available to the average PPL.
Of course it is not perfect and zone infringements will still occur. However in my opinion they would be an awful lot fewer.
GA vitally needs this culture change. GPS is one of the most important pieces of equipment in the cockpit both as a navigational aid but also as a very good means of getting yourself out of trouble. It is also one of the least expensive pieces of kit. I simply have no idea why anyone would want to fly without a moving map GPS even if it was only there as a backup to visual navigation, unless you had complete confidence in your visual navigation in all circumstances (and I accept there are a few who would be able to meet that criteria).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuji,
About 4 or 5nm. You'll have to ask Mr Honeywell why it was adrift. It happened once, since then I haven't really bothered with GPS and now the group disbanded I don't have one. Not sure how long it was like that, because I was flying with watch and chart, the GPS was on to satisfy my passenger's curiosity, but we are talking at least minutes. Before anybody suggests it, I was right and it was wrong - OK 
It was once said that the difference between the US and British armies is that the US man the equipment and the Brits equip the man. Anything that even remotely suggests "thou shalt use GPS" is fundementally a bad idea. What ever the reasons for pilots busting CAS, fundementally it was because they swtiched off rather than the GPS not being switched on. IMHO, to totally prevent CAS busts flying must be a simple activity, so long as man holdeth the stick and pusheth the buttons nothing will ever make flying a simple task 
High Wing Drifter
How much was the map adrift by?
Why was it adrift?
How many times has it occurred?
How quickly did you identify the problem?
With respect, that was my point. Pilots say GPS is not very reliable, but never seem to set out the facts.
How much was the map adrift by?
Why was it adrift?
How many times has it occurred?
How quickly did you identify the problem?
With respect, that was my point. Pilots say GPS is not very reliable, but never seem to set out the facts.
I would support mandatory GPS training as part of the PPL syllabus...GPS is one of the most important pieces of equipment in the cockpit both as a navigational aid but also as a very good means of getting yourself out of trouble.
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 14th Oct 2005 at 14:44.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 100% with Fuji Abound.
I was not after mandatory USE of GPS; it would be its inclusion in the PPL (which itself is highly unlikely) that would result in mandatory INSTALLATION in a proportion of training aircraft. Mandatory USE of anything is not enforceable (company manuals in commercial ops aside) and that's why no law prohibits any use of GPS...
Mandatory installation of GPS in all aircraft would do a lot more good than mandatory Mode S (and at a similar cost)
HWD - flying might have been a "simple activity" in 1930 but it isn't today.
I was not after mandatory USE of GPS; it would be its inclusion in the PPL (which itself is highly unlikely) that would result in mandatory INSTALLATION in a proportion of training aircraft. Mandatory USE of anything is not enforceable (company manuals in commercial ops aside) and that's why no law prohibits any use of GPS...
Mandatory installation of GPS in all aircraft would do a lot more good than mandatory Mode S (and at a similar cost)
HWD - flying might have been a "simple activity" in 1930 but it isn't today.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't see one infringement by a 'low & slow' rag & tube type (Cub, Luscombe, Tiger Moth, Aeronca ...).
Also without Mode C one cannot tell one has a vertical bust, in any airspace that doesn't extend to ground. Even if the bust is a bust (say in a CTR) one cannot estimate its seriousness relative to other traffic (no height info) so I would bet that reporting action is less likely to start with.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting debate so far.
Just to concentrate the mind:
Zone infringments have been responsible for the vast majority of the serious breaches in safety in NATS airspace so far this year. Those people who seem to accept that infringements are OK (and that cutting the corner INSIDE CAS is also OK...) might not be so relaxed about it if their nearest and dearest were aboard one of the civil airliners which missed a zone infringer 'by providence' (i.e. no-one was able to take effective action to keep them apart).
I have on occasion been one of those 'right down the edge of CAS' people, thinking that it was my right to exercise my freedom in the open FIR. No longer so. Use whatever you can (GPS, Eyeball, VOR/DME) to be sure of your position, but give yourself a buffer in case of wind changes, lack of attention etc. As some have already said, if you are spending all your time concentrating on following a line on a GPS or CDI or track crawling, what are you doing to stop yourself flying into another aircraft?
Just to concentrate the mind:
Zone infringments have been responsible for the vast majority of the serious breaches in safety in NATS airspace so far this year. Those people who seem to accept that infringements are OK (and that cutting the corner INSIDE CAS is also OK...) might not be so relaxed about it if their nearest and dearest were aboard one of the civil airliners which missed a zone infringer 'by providence' (i.e. no-one was able to take effective action to keep them apart).
I have on occasion been one of those 'right down the edge of CAS' people, thinking that it was my right to exercise my freedom in the open FIR. No longer so. Use whatever you can (GPS, Eyeball, VOR/DME) to be sure of your position, but give yourself a buffer in case of wind changes, lack of attention etc. As some have already said, if you are spending all your time concentrating on following a line on a GPS or CDI or track crawling, what are you doing to stop yourself flying into another aircraft?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we even enjoy watching you hover in certain wind conditions
You must have a weird MTI to do that or do you see all the hills and buildings round the area as well?
------
While there is some merit in the them and us debate. It would be very interesting if the delays attributable to NATS each day/week/month inlcuded delays to VFR flights. Perhaps such figures would create another working group! There was a scheme to fill in a form for every refusal of a Class D transit. How many pilots have ever filled one in? Far less than have been refused a transit - which knocks a small hole in the "them and us" description.
Regards,
DFC
You must have a weird MTI to do that or do you see all the hills and buildings round the area as well?
------
While there is some merit in the them and us debate. It would be very interesting if the delays attributable to NATS each day/week/month inlcuded delays to VFR flights. Perhaps such figures would create another working group! There was a scheme to fill in a form for every refusal of a Class D transit. How many pilots have ever filled one in? Far less than have been refused a transit - which knocks a small hole in the "them and us" description.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We can be seen and tracked - but there were no reported infringements by such aircraft (the ones possibly least likely to be using moving map GPS) in that period."
The answer is far simpler.
Most pilots who fly this type of aircraft are owner operators. They are usually pilots of sound experience if for no other reason than these types demand more skills than the traditional spam can. They are also likely to be pilots who enjoy the traditional aspects of aviation and not surprisingly will therefore be ardent supporters of traditional navigation. On the whole they are just the pilots I referred to earlier who will be pretty good at visual navigation. They are also helped by flying types that are slow.
WR characteristics you may recognise?
The "problem" pilots I would hazard are the low timers flying rented aircraft or members of larger groups who do a relatively few number of hours a year or those stepping up to faster aircraft. Who among us hasn’t been there when at some point in our flying careers we needed every bit of help we could get. These are just the pilots who would avoid CAS busts if they had the help a moving map GPS can provide if only they had some training on its proper operation, and were not constantly told that they shouldn’t use this new fangled technology.
DFC - I think the point others are making is that the UK has a poor record for fitting commercial and GA traffic into CAS to the extent that many are reluctant to seek clearances and therefore attempt to route closely around CAS rather than through it. Add to this the amount of CAS in the south and the need to route around it or even between narrow blocks of it and you have a very good recipe for more CAS busts in the UK than elsewhere. The number of times I hear something along the lines "well I never talk to Gatwick, they are far too busy to want to talk to me, I feel like a nuisance" or "I would far rather route around or under solent because although I will probably get a clearance I will be held orbiting for 10 minutes and then be given a routing I didn’t ask for and didn’t want".
Mandatory reporting of failing to give CAS clearances is rather like national health waiting lists - a CAS clearance is still a CAS clearance if you could have had breakfast whilst waiting to be given it and then routed somewhere you didn’t want to go but it is as much good as the nurse assessing you in A and E in the first 10 minutes, but waiting four hours before having the fish bone removed from your throat.
The answer is far simpler.
Most pilots who fly this type of aircraft are owner operators. They are usually pilots of sound experience if for no other reason than these types demand more skills than the traditional spam can. They are also likely to be pilots who enjoy the traditional aspects of aviation and not surprisingly will therefore be ardent supporters of traditional navigation. On the whole they are just the pilots I referred to earlier who will be pretty good at visual navigation. They are also helped by flying types that are slow.
WR characteristics you may recognise?
The "problem" pilots I would hazard are the low timers flying rented aircraft or members of larger groups who do a relatively few number of hours a year or those stepping up to faster aircraft. Who among us hasn’t been there when at some point in our flying careers we needed every bit of help we could get. These are just the pilots who would avoid CAS busts if they had the help a moving map GPS can provide if only they had some training on its proper operation, and were not constantly told that they shouldn’t use this new fangled technology.
DFC - I think the point others are making is that the UK has a poor record for fitting commercial and GA traffic into CAS to the extent that many are reluctant to seek clearances and therefore attempt to route closely around CAS rather than through it. Add to this the amount of CAS in the south and the need to route around it or even between narrow blocks of it and you have a very good recipe for more CAS busts in the UK than elsewhere. The number of times I hear something along the lines "well I never talk to Gatwick, they are far too busy to want to talk to me, I feel like a nuisance" or "I would far rather route around or under solent because although I will probably get a clearance I will be held orbiting for 10 minutes and then be given a routing I didn’t ask for and didn’t want".
Mandatory reporting of failing to give CAS clearances is rather like national health waiting lists - a CAS clearance is still a CAS clearance if you could have had breakfast whilst waiting to be given it and then routed somewhere you didn’t want to go but it is as much good as the nurse assessing you in A and E in the first 10 minutes, but waiting four hours before having the fish bone removed from your throat.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points:
Vintage aircraft (however you define that) owners rarely fly very far. I know a fair few and they stick very much to the local area, most never venturing past a 50-100nm radius. After doing this for 30 years, you get to know the place pretty well! I would not expect the typical WW1 aircraft owner to EVER feature in CAS busts.
I WOULD expect the "younger" owners of slow planes to feature however. Speaking to one Class A ATCO recently, they do very much feature (microlights, etc).
PPLs are usually told to not talk to ATC at busy Class D airports. My PPL instructor (who claimed to hold a CAA ATPL; probably a fake like so much in aviation) told me "don't ever talk to Gatwick - they will shoot you down and destroy your confidence so much you will never want to fly again". I know it's easy (usually) to get a VFR transit through the Gatwick zone, 2400ft, but equally I rarely bother because it's easy to go round it. There is some truth in this negative approach however because one is much more likely to get a transit if calling up confidently and presenting a clear route, A-B-C-D, not "would like a transit please, south to north" especially if without a transponder.
Vintage aircraft (however you define that) owners rarely fly very far. I know a fair few and they stick very much to the local area, most never venturing past a 50-100nm radius. After doing this for 30 years, you get to know the place pretty well! I would not expect the typical WW1 aircraft owner to EVER feature in CAS busts.
I WOULD expect the "younger" owners of slow planes to feature however. Speaking to one Class A ATCO recently, they do very much feature (microlights, etc).
PPLs are usually told to not talk to ATC at busy Class D airports. My PPL instructor (who claimed to hold a CAA ATPL; probably a fake like so much in aviation) told me "don't ever talk to Gatwick - they will shoot you down and destroy your confidence so much you will never want to fly again". I know it's easy (usually) to get a VFR transit through the Gatwick zone, 2400ft, but equally I rarely bother because it's easy to go round it. There is some truth in this negative approach however because one is much more likely to get a transit if calling up confidently and presenting a clear route, A-B-C-D, not "would like a transit please, south to north" especially if without a transponder.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A very quick glance over the first few pages of the "Safety Investigation and Data Detarpment Occurence Listing - GA occurrences recorded between 21 May 2005 and 19 Aug 2005" seems to indicate as many infringements by King Airs, Cessna 182's and other types probably using moving map GPS as there are by Cessna 150s (which may also be using moving map GPS)."
You mention two types and a collective "other" - King Airs and Cessna 182s. There is no evidence either of these types carry moving map GPS to a greater or lesser extent than other types. There are also numerous CAS busts that go unreported so the list you refer to is unlikely to give a complete picture.
I would agree that King Air crew will not be low timers but equally the type of CAS busts with which they are involved are not typical of those that plague CZ units.
The trouble is there is not a great deal of definitive evidence whether or not the use of moving maps or other means of navigation are more or less effective in preventing CAS busts.
Perhaps following a CAS bust pilots should be required to complete a questionaire (perhaps in consideration of no further action) for a period of time. This might enable a more relaible picture to evolve of the casue (and whether or not moving maps would have helped prevent the bust).
You mention two types and a collective "other" - King Airs and Cessna 182s. There is no evidence either of these types carry moving map GPS to a greater or lesser extent than other types. There are also numerous CAS busts that go unreported so the list you refer to is unlikely to give a complete picture.
I would agree that King Air crew will not be low timers but equally the type of CAS busts with which they are involved are not typical of those that plague CZ units.
The trouble is there is not a great deal of definitive evidence whether or not the use of moving maps or other means of navigation are more or less effective in preventing CAS busts.
Perhaps following a CAS bust pilots should be required to complete a questionaire (perhaps in consideration of no further action) for a period of time. This might enable a more relaible picture to evolve of the casue (and whether or not moving maps would have helped prevent the bust).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps following a CAS bust pilots should be required to complete a questionaire (perhaps in consideration of no further action) for a period of time. This might enable a more relaible picture to evolve of the casue (and whether or not moving maps would have helped prevent the bust).
If you bust CAS there's two things that could happen: I'm not sure of the exact form number, but I understand that a MOR is one, and there's another form filled in if the bust warrants it.
The CAA will write to you either from the "Flight Standards Officer" or from Enforcement and AFAIK this depends if only one (the MOR) or both forms are completed by ATC.
The data from the non-enforcement (FSO) is collated and AFAIK is used in coming up with recommendations.
Enforcement use a different tactic
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle - but isn’t the problem (in terms of gathering useful statistical information) most CAS infringements result in a reminder from the ATCO that you have infringed - get out! It is my perception (may be wrongly) that only a very small percentage result in a follow up.
It would also be interesting what information you are asked to give on the MOR - I wonder if it is anything useful
- fortunately I have managed to avoid seeing one .
WR - agreed. However it is my perception (and also I think IOs) that it is pretty hard to infringe CAS with a moving map GPS as long as it is turned on and you keep an occasional eye on it because it tells you exactly were you are in relation to CAS 99.9% of the time. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against using moving map GPS - those arguments along the lines they often lose signal, aren’t very accurate, are easy to enter a course incorrectly just do not wash.
It would also be interesting what information you are asked to give on the MOR - I wonder if it is anything useful
- fortunately I have managed to avoid seeing one .WR - agreed. However it is my perception (and also I think IOs) that it is pretty hard to infringe CAS with a moving map GPS as long as it is turned on and you keep an occasional eye on it because it tells you exactly were you are in relation to CAS 99.9% of the time. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against using moving map GPS - those arguments along the lines they often lose signal, aren’t very accurate, are easy to enter a course incorrectly just do not wash.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WR - agreed. However it is my perception (and also I think IOs) that it is pretty hard to infringe CAS with a moving map GPS as long as it is turned on and you keep an occasional eye on it because it tells you exactly were you are in relation to CAS 99.9% of the time.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think GPS is great and use one with a moving map display in one of my aircraft. Its not a very fancy one, a Pilot GPS III. I only know how to do "GOTO" havent bothered looking for anything more complex, but it suits my purpose, which is really to give an overview of where I am, as an aid to map reading. If I have to track closely around controlled airspace, I will do this by refering to the map and making sure I know where I am.
In the other old slow aircraft with no electrical system, I just use the map and this is fine too, but I wouldnt want to have to navigate too closely to controlled airspace, unless the features are very good. I remember a trip to Schaffen one year trying to navigate between the Brussels and Antwerp zone thur that 2 mile gap, where there are so many canals, motorways etc its hard to know where you are- much easier with the GPS!
I would totally agree that use of GPS should be in all PPL sylabuses, much more useful than ADF tracking! However, I would imagine GPS also causes quite a few infringements particularly for low time pilots relying on it too much. With poor preparation, its easy to just hit GOTO XXX and it seems that the route is fine, but with a long route and by the time you have been blown off track, your new GOTO route, takes you thru the edge of controlled airspace. Or with worse planning it went through the controlled airspace anyway without your flying being inaccurate.
I remember quite a few years ago at a PFA rally at Wroughton, when we asked someone in a large Cessna, why he had just flown right through the Lyneham zone, he said he was just following his GPS!
Using GPS is certainly advantageous, and I tend to agree that errors in the GPS position are very small and very rare. Its the user input that can be the problem!
I think the UK charts are excellent and generally very good for navigation, only bettered by the French IGN charts- agree with whoever said it that the powerlines are very useful. On both of these it is reasonably easy to figure out the controlled airspace. However I have found that the Jeppesen charts are very poor for this, it often takes a long time to find the altitude limits of complex bits of controlled airspace and the presentation just isnt very good. I wonder if a lot of people are using these nowadays, resulting in more infringements.
I also think that the differences between ATC "services" is a problem. Paris info etc has a radar, knows where you are and warns you of controlled airspace. London info is a completely different service, really it is just a frequency on which you can ask for information. I wonder how many foreign pilots think they are getting a radar service from London info and go busting through controlled airspace. I know that some do. Some ATC units even seem to think so, as they suggest you to call London info when being handed over from their zone. There is no point, unless you need to contact them for specific information.
In France you are also very rarely "cleared to enter controlled airspace" once you have called up and said where you are going, they might ask you to report somewhere, but hardly ever issue a clerance, but you are implicitly cleared through, whereas in the UK you must not enter unless given a specific clearance.
Some ATC units in the UK seem to spend time asking me what kind of service I require wanting to give me Flight Information Serivce or whatever. In most cases I am not interested in this, I just want permission to cross the zone that they have established in the way of the route I want to fly. I wonder how many times someone has been told "Flight information service" and assumed this to mean cleared to do what he asked for. I know this is incorrect, but an easy assumption to make.
It seems to me, that in some cases Controlled airspace is far too big. Now if commercial operators who want this CAS had to pay for it, into some fund kept for GA who they keep out, then maybe it wouldnt be so large! Perhaps this fund could be used to pay for extra controllers who could spend more time giving GA aircraft clearance through the zone, rather than telling them to standby, or avoid controlled airspace.
In the other old slow aircraft with no electrical system, I just use the map and this is fine too, but I wouldnt want to have to navigate too closely to controlled airspace, unless the features are very good. I remember a trip to Schaffen one year trying to navigate between the Brussels and Antwerp zone thur that 2 mile gap, where there are so many canals, motorways etc its hard to know where you are- much easier with the GPS!
I would totally agree that use of GPS should be in all PPL sylabuses, much more useful than ADF tracking! However, I would imagine GPS also causes quite a few infringements particularly for low time pilots relying on it too much. With poor preparation, its easy to just hit GOTO XXX and it seems that the route is fine, but with a long route and by the time you have been blown off track, your new GOTO route, takes you thru the edge of controlled airspace. Or with worse planning it went through the controlled airspace anyway without your flying being inaccurate.
I remember quite a few years ago at a PFA rally at Wroughton, when we asked someone in a large Cessna, why he had just flown right through the Lyneham zone, he said he was just following his GPS!
Using GPS is certainly advantageous, and I tend to agree that errors in the GPS position are very small and very rare. Its the user input that can be the problem!
I think the UK charts are excellent and generally very good for navigation, only bettered by the French IGN charts- agree with whoever said it that the powerlines are very useful. On both of these it is reasonably easy to figure out the controlled airspace. However I have found that the Jeppesen charts are very poor for this, it often takes a long time to find the altitude limits of complex bits of controlled airspace and the presentation just isnt very good. I wonder if a lot of people are using these nowadays, resulting in more infringements.
I also think that the differences between ATC "services" is a problem. Paris info etc has a radar, knows where you are and warns you of controlled airspace. London info is a completely different service, really it is just a frequency on which you can ask for information. I wonder how many foreign pilots think they are getting a radar service from London info and go busting through controlled airspace. I know that some do. Some ATC units even seem to think so, as they suggest you to call London info when being handed over from their zone. There is no point, unless you need to contact them for specific information.
In France you are also very rarely "cleared to enter controlled airspace" once you have called up and said where you are going, they might ask you to report somewhere, but hardly ever issue a clerance, but you are implicitly cleared through, whereas in the UK you must not enter unless given a specific clearance.
Some ATC units in the UK seem to spend time asking me what kind of service I require wanting to give me Flight Information Serivce or whatever. In most cases I am not interested in this, I just want permission to cross the zone that they have established in the way of the route I want to fly. I wonder how many times someone has been told "Flight information service" and assumed this to mean cleared to do what he asked for. I know this is incorrect, but an easy assumption to make.
It seems to me, that in some cases Controlled airspace is far too big. Now if commercial operators who want this CAS had to pay for it, into some fund kept for GA who they keep out, then maybe it wouldnt be so large! Perhaps this fund could be used to pay for extra controllers who could spend more time giving GA aircraft clearance through the zone, rather than telling them to standby, or avoid controlled airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it funny that pilots will happily fork out £500 on an electronic piece of kit that warns the pilot every time it is turned on that it does not do what the pilot bought it for. Then they spend a few hundred pounds each year to keep the information in that piece of equipment up to date.
Ask that pilot to pay £1 in route charges for a VFR flight that obtains LARS and zone transit and all hell breaks loose.
On a more serious note. If UK controllers treated class D as the Class D described in the ICAO documents and not as their own unclassified piece of restricted/prohibited airspace that would mean that more transit flights could be accepted without impinging on the IFR flights. That would place many of the pilots trying to fly past the zone with .000001nm lateral separation within the system and make them known traffic.
The "duty of care" argument oft posed against the above is utter rubbish. How can one have a duty to do something that the written procedures clearly say you do not have to do? - Are the written procedures wrong?
I note that Edinburgh is expanding it's class D and the Class E is disapearing. What impact will that have on infringements in that area? - Will Edinburgh give transits to every VFR flight that wants to pass through the airspace that they have safely passed through without clearance for years? Why not? since the separation standards are still the same - none!
A number of posters including myself have proposed the removal of both QFE and the RPS system. Since no one has objected then perhaps that is one area in which those that debate here agree and should be taken on board.
Regards,
DFC
Ask that pilot to pay £1 in route charges for a VFR flight that obtains LARS and zone transit and all hell breaks loose.
On a more serious note. If UK controllers treated class D as the Class D described in the ICAO documents and not as their own unclassified piece of restricted/prohibited airspace that would mean that more transit flights could be accepted without impinging on the IFR flights. That would place many of the pilots trying to fly past the zone with .000001nm lateral separation within the system and make them known traffic.
The "duty of care" argument oft posed against the above is utter rubbish. How can one have a duty to do something that the written procedures clearly say you do not have to do? - Are the written procedures wrong?
I note that Edinburgh is expanding it's class D and the Class E is disapearing. What impact will that have on infringements in that area? - Will Edinburgh give transits to every VFR flight that wants to pass through the airspace that they have safely passed through without clearance for years? Why not? since the separation standards are still the same - none!
A number of posters including myself have proposed the removal of both QFE and the RPS system. Since no one has objected then perhaps that is one area in which those that debate here agree and should be taken on board.
Regards,
DFC