Zone Infringements - why ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this data is collected and, if it was and it showed that using GPS makes a CAS bust less likely, it would not be publicised by CAA's GA Dept.
If the CAA had data showing GPS usage is a bad thing, they would plaster it all over the place.
Same reason why the CAA don't publicise the appalling license expiry figures - they would show the flight training industry and the CAA in very poor light. They do publicise the license award figures, of course...
Their ambivalent attitude to all this ensures these debates will run and run.
cubflyer
A few things: a GPS3 is actually a very old unit, perhaps 10 years old now. The map quality on it is very poor. If GPS was to become mainstream, one would have to provide something better (e.g. a KMD150 as a base). It does appear that many people's views on GPS (don't mean you particularly) are based on these very old designs.
As for user input, that's very true but it relates only to entering the route. One doesn't need user input to see the moving map and to use the zoom+ zoom- buttons. GPSs do have gotchas in the route entry.
Also in France you do need explicit clearance for CAS (like in the UK); they are just very casual about it. If there is no traffic to conflict, they don't see why they should make a meal of it.
DFC
You don't appear to be familiar with any real flying. Almost nobody flying VFR updates their GPS to the latest version all the time. IFR pilots flying ATS routes do (they generally have to to stay legal) but the update cost isn't as much as £500 unless you go for the full 28-way cycle. Yet the CAA expects UK VFR pilots to fly with charts up to 1 year old.
Also the customary "do not use for navigation" message is there because it's always been there (it is hoped to cover some lawyer's a**e); it doesn't relate to the requirement to use the GPS as primary nav on BRNAV routes for example.
If the CAA had data showing GPS usage is a bad thing, they would plaster it all over the place.
Same reason why the CAA don't publicise the appalling license expiry figures - they would show the flight training industry and the CAA in very poor light. They do publicise the license award figures, of course...
Their ambivalent attitude to all this ensures these debates will run and run.
cubflyer
A few things: a GPS3 is actually a very old unit, perhaps 10 years old now. The map quality on it is very poor. If GPS was to become mainstream, one would have to provide something better (e.g. a KMD150 as a base). It does appear that many people's views on GPS (don't mean you particularly) are based on these very old designs.
As for user input, that's very true but it relates only to entering the route. One doesn't need user input to see the moving map and to use the zoom+ zoom- buttons. GPSs do have gotchas in the route entry.
Also in France you do need explicit clearance for CAS (like in the UK); they are just very casual about it. If there is no traffic to conflict, they don't see why they should make a meal of it.
DFC
You don't appear to be familiar with any real flying. Almost nobody flying VFR updates their GPS to the latest version all the time. IFR pilots flying ATS routes do (they generally have to to stay legal) but the update cost isn't as much as £500 unless you go for the full 28-way cycle. Yet the CAA expects UK VFR pilots to fly with charts up to 1 year old.
Also the customary "do not use for navigation" message is there because it's always been there (it is hoped to cover some lawyer's a**e); it doesn't relate to the requirement to use the GPS as primary nav on BRNAV routes for example.
Last edited by IO540; 16th Oct 2005 at 18:22.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small change of direction.......
Do you have difficulty judging distances when navigating visually?
I do. My RNAV or GPS tells me that my destination airfield is 4.2nm away in my half-past-eleven. But it sometimes takes me a while to spot it. I'm almost always looking too far away and I'm surprised to find the field much closer to the aeroplane.
Perhaps the same is true when, to remain outside CAS, you need to be at least (for example) 2nm west of that aerial or this river.
As has been pointed out, most useful visual checks are not on the boundary of CAS, nor are they on your desired track.
Or perhaps I've relied on radio-nav and GPS for too long???
AA.
Do you have difficulty judging distances when navigating visually?
I do. My RNAV or GPS tells me that my destination airfield is 4.2nm away in my half-past-eleven. But it sometimes takes me a while to spot it. I'm almost always looking too far away and I'm surprised to find the field much closer to the aeroplane.
Perhaps the same is true when, to remain outside CAS, you need to be at least (for example) 2nm west of that aerial or this river.
As has been pointed out, most useful visual checks are not on the boundary of CAS, nor are they on your desired track.
Or perhaps I've relied on radio-nav and GPS for too long???
AA.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Do you have difficulty judging distances when navigating visually?
It occurs to me that I don't actually know what's the nearest ground feature I can see out of the front window of the aircraft (in normal cruising configuration obviously). Two miles? Ten? From fifteen hundred feet? Nine thousand? Maybe I'll take some measurements next time I'm flying and I've got a suitably low workload.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As said earlier "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!"
I think this is a superb question(s) and perhaps someone in ATC who might have a better view than I could give us some guidance.
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!"
I think this is a superb question(s) and perhaps someone in ATC who might have a better view than I could give us some guidance.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"But it sometimes takes me a while to spot it."
It's pretty normal for grass fields to not be spotted until one is on long final.
Occassionally tarmac ones, too. Recently I approached a well known tarmac GA airfield (~800m runway) with 3 passengers, all PPLs, and I knew where it was a) because the GPS told me and b) because I've been there before many times. None of the 3 spotted it until about 2nm. Vis was about 7000m in haze and that was about when I could see the runway myself.
Very few people admit to this. I happily do, I am sorry to say
It's pretty normal for grass fields to not be spotted until one is on long final.
Occassionally tarmac ones, too. Recently I approached a well known tarmac GA airfield (~800m runway) with 3 passengers, all PPLs, and I knew where it was a) because the GPS told me and b) because I've been there before many times. None of the 3 spotted it until about 2nm. Vis was about 7000m in haze and that was about when I could see the runway myself.
Very few people admit to this. I happily do, I am sorry to say
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA publish a chart one per year and publish amendments as and when they occur. The only real up-to-date chart is the current edition with all the updates incorporated. Anyone do that? 
You don't appear to be familiar with any real flying. Almost nobody flying VFR updates their GPS to the latest version all the time
There is another reason for infringements. If the database is out of date then the moving map may show incorrect airspace boundaries. For example IO540's type of real flyer could still be using the old database that caused the Kingair pilot to infringe London Zone and may continue to use it until whenever.
Unlike the CAA chart, updates for moving maps are not available unless one pays the money and most pilots really don't like spending money.
To add some more reasons;
The poor quality of the AIS briefing service resulting in poor pre-flight planning by pilots wrt temporary airspace.
Jeppesen charting services trying to fit European airspace into a US method of operation. This is worse that first appears. Look at the area between Lyneham and the London TMA on the CAA 1:500000 and look at the same on a moving map supplied by Jeppesen. Jeppesen will show the Cotswold CTA base FL105 but will not show the airway with a base of FL65.
This means that a pilot using a GP will not get an airspace warning if they accidently get too close to the airway. They may even try to underfly the Cotswold CTA and overfly Lyneham but not check the airway - slam bang and airspace infringement.
Since Jeppesen supply the database for most GPS units then most GPS units will not show airways in the UK. Look SW of Solent's airspace towards ORTAC and see if there is an airway displayed. Many other places are simply infringements waiting to happen - but for the fact that the majority of IO540's "real pilots" cruise round at 2000 to 3000ft 99% of the time.
Regards,
DFC
You don't appear to be familiar with any real flying. Almost nobody flying VFR updates their GPS to the latest version all the time
There is another reason for infringements. If the database is out of date then the moving map may show incorrect airspace boundaries. For example IO540's type of real flyer could still be using the old database that caused the Kingair pilot to infringe London Zone and may continue to use it until whenever.
Unlike the CAA chart, updates for moving maps are not available unless one pays the money and most pilots really don't like spending money.
To add some more reasons;
The poor quality of the AIS briefing service resulting in poor pre-flight planning by pilots wrt temporary airspace.
Jeppesen charting services trying to fit European airspace into a US method of operation. This is worse that first appears. Look at the area between Lyneham and the London TMA on the CAA 1:500000 and look at the same on a moving map supplied by Jeppesen. Jeppesen will show the Cotswold CTA base FL105 but will not show the airway with a base of FL65.
This means that a pilot using a GP will not get an airspace warning if they accidently get too close to the airway. They may even try to underfly the Cotswold CTA and overfly Lyneham but not check the airway - slam bang and airspace infringement.
Since Jeppesen supply the database for most GPS units then most GPS units will not show airways in the UK. Look SW of Solent's airspace towards ORTAC and see if there is an airway displayed. Many other places are simply infringements waiting to happen - but for the fact that the majority of IO540's "real pilots" cruise round at 2000 to 3000ft 99% of the time.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on DFC, show some correlation between CAS busts and (the very few) UK airspace changes, and you may be able to stretch this thread by at least another 10 posts
You do have a point about Jepp data not showing airways. This is a well known example of Jepp's arrogance and I wish they fixed it. But only an idiot would suggest that VFR (or IFR OCAS) flight planning should be done solely on the basis of the relatively bare airspace depiction on the Jepp GPS data. One needs to have the paper VFR chart on on's knees when flying. Or have some electronic version of the VFR chart (e.g. Memory Map for the UK, or FliteMap with the raster charts add-on for Europe).
IFR (airways) flight is routinely done using electronic data alone but that's another matter; one is under ATS control all the way so national and CAS boundaries become immaterial.
You do have a point about Jepp data not showing airways. This is a well known example of Jepp's arrogance and I wish they fixed it. But only an idiot would suggest that VFR (or IFR OCAS) flight planning should be done solely on the basis of the relatively bare airspace depiction on the Jepp GPS data. One needs to have the paper VFR chart on on's knees when flying. Or have some electronic version of the VFR chart (e.g. Memory Map for the UK, or FliteMap with the raster charts add-on for Europe).
IFR (airways) flight is routinely done using electronic data alone but that's another matter; one is under ATS control all the way so national and CAS boundaries become immaterial.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-reading this forum the words "training" keep ringing in my ears.
GPS technology is sound and reliable. It is also pretty easy to use but as always there are some pitfalls - one or two of which have been highlighted on this thread.
There would also appear to be no substantive evidence that its use helps prevent CAS busts but it would seem the general perception is that its use would help enormously.
All of which makes me wonder why on earth its use is not included in the CAA PPL syllabus? Come on CAA you have got to wake up to new technology - it doesnt mean you will be telling people it is 100% reliable all the time and it doesnt mean you need to approve GPS as the sole means of en route navigation but it does mean you have a duty to train people properly to use a bit of kit that over the next ten years will become the norm.
.. .. .. and Flower as ATCOs you need to have better data at your finger tips. CAS bust are a pain for you and you obviously do not want them to occur. Why then dont you ensure there is a proper reporting arrangement in place the object of which is to identify the cause and to publish this information in the public domain - or is it some closely guarded secret!
GPS technology is sound and reliable. It is also pretty easy to use but as always there are some pitfalls - one or two of which have been highlighted on this thread.
There would also appear to be no substantive evidence that its use helps prevent CAS busts but it would seem the general perception is that its use would help enormously.
All of which makes me wonder why on earth its use is not included in the CAA PPL syllabus? Come on CAA you have got to wake up to new technology - it doesnt mean you will be telling people it is 100% reliable all the time and it doesnt mean you need to approve GPS as the sole means of en route navigation but it does mean you have a duty to train people properly to use a bit of kit that over the next ten years will become the norm.
.. .. .. and Flower as ATCOs you need to have better data at your finger tips. CAS bust are a pain for you and you obviously do not want them to occur. Why then dont you ensure there is a proper reporting arrangement in place the object of which is to identify the cause and to publish this information in the public domain - or is it some closely guarded secret!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeppesen databases for GPS:
I have GNS430 with the Central European database which I keep up to date monthly. I do not know if this database is the same as is used for other aviation GPSs.
When I bought this GPS, the Luton and Stansted CTA/CTR boundaries were accurately shown. About three years ago, after one monthly update, some of the boundaries disappeared.
I contacted Jepp, but did not get a useful reply, so I raised an MOR. This resulted in the missing boundaries being re-instated in the database one the next AIRAC cycle.
It seems that Jepp did not realise the significance of Class D airspace boundaries in the UK and applied a change, which might be OK for USA, to their worldwide database, with potentially disasterous consequences.
You certainly cannot rely on the database to show all airspace boundaries, but used in conjunction with a half-mill chart, and the distance from other aviation features screens, when necessary, you certainly can determine where you are. On balance, there is no doubt in my mind that GPS is a positive and substantial aid to reducing infringements.
Of course, you do have to look out for GPS jamming notams and do your RAIM checks, but this (together with understanding the database and when not to use the GOTO button) should be part of the training mentioned above.
AA.
I have GNS430 with the Central European database which I keep up to date monthly. I do not know if this database is the same as is used for other aviation GPSs.
When I bought this GPS, the Luton and Stansted CTA/CTR boundaries were accurately shown. About three years ago, after one monthly update, some of the boundaries disappeared.
I contacted Jepp, but did not get a useful reply, so I raised an MOR. This resulted in the missing boundaries being re-instated in the database one the next AIRAC cycle.
It seems that Jepp did not realise the significance of Class D airspace boundaries in the UK and applied a change, which might be OK for USA, to their worldwide database, with potentially disasterous consequences.
You certainly cannot rely on the database to show all airspace boundaries, but used in conjunction with a half-mill chart, and the distance from other aviation features screens, when necessary, you certainly can determine where you are. On balance, there is no doubt in my mind that GPS is a positive and substantial aid to reducing infringements.
Of course, you do have to look out for GPS jamming notams and do your RAIM checks, but this (together with understanding the database and when not to use the GOTO button) should be part of the training mentioned above.
AA.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working hard said "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?"
The 'written procedures' include the following;
3 Control of VFR Flights
3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient
traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic
information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
I think you will find that most ATCOs have no interest in 'separating' VFR from IFR traffic in Class D airspace but given that the above is published in the MATS Part 1, few of us feel we have any alternative than to provide additional safequards/seperation than the basic ICAO definition of Class D may suggest.
The 'written procedures' include the following;
3 Control of VFR Flights
3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient
traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic
information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
I think you will find that most ATCOs have no interest in 'separating' VFR from IFR traffic in Class D airspace but given that the above is published in the MATS Part 1, few of us feel we have any alternative than to provide additional safequards/seperation than the basic ICAO definition of Class D may suggest.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC_LTN - I just copied it from earlier in the thread because no one had replied (Idid not see any reply). I expected you ATC guys would know far better than us pilots having a guess and you have clarified it, so thank you. Can you offer a reason for Edinburgh's need to extend the CAS? Is the flight profile changing in and out of the airport? Are newer a/c not able to climb and/or descend as before? With the existing CAS how many CAT flights were outside the protected zone? Anyone please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course all separation standards are minima.
When new CAS is established they design it as the minimum required to achieve the goal, they cannot get away with taking more than necessary.
When new CAS is established they design it as the minimum required to achieve the goal, they cannot get away with taking more than necessary.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the 'old' airspace, any CAT which was below 6000' and outwith 10NM of Edinburgh within the Class E part of the Scottish TMA airspace would have been 'unprotected' in VMC conditions.
The only protection would be 'see and be seen', as per Class G, along with information passed by the radar controller on any observed unknown traffic.
In other words, it was not a known traffic environment.
Yellow AIC (177) 87/2005 gives full details and is available on the AIS website.
As Flower says, the minimum needed for the profiles required will be what is granted by DAP, after consultation and agreement with accreditated airspace users and groups. In addition I think you will also find that there has been a 'quid pro quo' with some reduction in CAS in certain areas (raised bases, etc) to return airspace which is not needed any longer. This is the normal method employed within the UK.
The only protection would be 'see and be seen', as per Class G, along with information passed by the radar controller on any observed unknown traffic.
In other words, it was not a known traffic environment.
Yellow AIC (177) 87/2005 gives full details and is available on the AIS website.
As Flower says, the minimum needed for the profiles required will be what is granted by DAP, after consultation and agreement with accreditated airspace users and groups. In addition I think you will also find that there has been a 'quid pro quo' with some reduction in CAS in certain areas (raised bases, etc) to return airspace which is not needed any longer. This is the normal method employed within the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could another factor causing infringements (many unnoticed) is that there is an ever increasing number of aircraft permitted to fly in the UK with uncertified and uncalibrated altimeters?
Unfortunately in this respect the CAA does not have a common approach i.e.;
It is perfectly legal for an aircraft on a permit to fly using an uncertified altimeter to accept a VFR crossing of a class D CTR at say "not above 1500ft".
The only reason why the "not above 1500ft" restriction is placed on the VFR flight is because the CAA requires the controller to apply Class C airspace requirements and separate from an IFR flight passing overhead at 2500ft.
Problem is that the uncertified altimeter may be telling the pilot that they are at 1500ft but actually the 15 year old altimeter which has suffered several jolts sticks a bit and the aircraft is actually at 2000ft.
Thus the CAA requires an ATCO to separate flights which thanks to the CAA's own rules may get closer than the CAA would like.
Bit of a mess one thinks!
regards,
DFC
Unfortunately in this respect the CAA does not have a common approach i.e.;
It is perfectly legal for an aircraft on a permit to fly using an uncertified altimeter to accept a VFR crossing of a class D CTR at say "not above 1500ft".
The only reason why the "not above 1500ft" restriction is placed on the VFR flight is because the CAA requires the controller to apply Class C airspace requirements and separate from an IFR flight passing overhead at 2500ft.
Problem is that the uncertified altimeter may be telling the pilot that they are at 1500ft but actually the 15 year old altimeter which has suffered several jolts sticks a bit and the aircraft is actually at 2000ft.
Thus the CAA requires an ATCO to separate flights which thanks to the CAA's own rules may get closer than the CAA would like.
Bit of a mess one thinks!
regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could make a general rant about the general poor maintenance of UK's self fly hire Cessna/Piper fleet, but I doubt that any pilot with a functioning brain would fail to spot an altimeter which is reading 500ft wrong at the elevation of the airfield it's parked on!
I've seen loads and loads of duff instruments; in fact the planes I used to rent often had more stuff INOP than working, but I've never seen a duff altimeter.
Anyway, people with a decent installed GPS can always check the altimeter against the GPS altitude I've never seen the GPS more than 50ft wrong at the known elevation.
I've seen loads and loads of duff instruments; in fact the planes I used to rent often had more stuff INOP than working, but I've never seen a duff altimeter.
Anyway, people with a decent installed GPS can always check the altimeter against the GPS altitude
I've never seen the GPS more than 50ft wrong at the known elevation.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warped factor,
Please explain your interpretation of vertical separation and how it is acheived. To make it more interesting, have the permit to fly aircraft operating on a special VFR clearance in 10Km visibility and you attempt to pass an IFR flight 1000ft vertically overhead.
The simple fact is that while c of a aircraft are required to have their altimeter certified and checked on a regular basis, permit aircraft have no such restriction. Thus the CAA makes no assurance that a permit to fly aircraft will be within the required maximum permitted error for a certified aircraft. Yet the CAA allows such aircraft to use that altimeter to judge vertical separation from both other aircraft and vertical airspace boundaries.
Have you ever had a look at what some flexwing microlights use as an altimeter - you would be shocked!
-----
IO540,
I have seen an example of an altimeter being 500ft in error on an aircraft (sticky). The give away at the start fo the flight was that we were at 40,000ft + the field elevation + 150ft with the QNH set so the owner adjusted the altimeter to read field elevation ignoring the QNH provided by ATC. During the descent the altimeter would not move much unless tapped and when tapped would jump some 300ft at a time and sing back and forth over a 300ft arc. Landing with a little bump ensured that the altimeter indicated a reasonable height again. The pilot simply stated that thre was no requirement for the altimeter to be certified and that was why he could only fly the aircraft VFR by day. He explained it as ground moves away - climbing. ground gets closer descending - what more do you what. It was one of those encounters where you simply walk away shaking you head, glad to be alive!
---
Of course add that to the fact that a basic PPL is only expected to keep the aircraft within +/- 150ft of the assigned altitude when in smooth air (greather allowances for rough conditions) and there are lots of reasons why a CTA can be infringed by a pilot attempting to fly 100ft below the base.
The point is that pilots are not the sole reasons for infringements. There is a lack of joined up writing within the CAAs ATS, Certification and Pilot standards departments that could continue to cause infringements even if pilots did their best to keep clear.
Regards,
DFC
Please explain your interpretation of vertical separation and how it is acheived. To make it more interesting, have the permit to fly aircraft operating on a special VFR clearance in 10Km visibility and you attempt to pass an IFR flight 1000ft vertically overhead.
The simple fact is that while c of a aircraft are required to have their altimeter certified and checked on a regular basis, permit aircraft have no such restriction. Thus the CAA makes no assurance that a permit to fly aircraft will be within the required maximum permitted error for a certified aircraft. Yet the CAA allows such aircraft to use that altimeter to judge vertical separation from both other aircraft and vertical airspace boundaries.
Have you ever had a look at what some flexwing microlights use as an altimeter - you would be shocked!
-----
IO540,
I have seen an example of an altimeter being 500ft in error on an aircraft (sticky). The give away at the start fo the flight was that we were at 40,000ft + the field elevation + 150ft with the QNH set so the owner adjusted the altimeter to read field elevation ignoring the QNH provided by ATC. During the descent the altimeter would not move much unless tapped and when tapped would jump some 300ft at a time and sing back and forth over a 300ft arc. Landing with a little bump ensured that the altimeter indicated a reasonable height again. The pilot simply stated that thre was no requirement for the altimeter to be certified and that was why he could only fly the aircraft VFR by day. He explained it as ground moves away - climbing. ground gets closer descending - what more do you what. It was one of those encounters where you simply walk away shaking you head, glad to be alive!
---
Of course add that to the fact that a basic PPL is only expected to keep the aircraft within +/- 150ft of the assigned altitude when in smooth air (greather allowances for rough conditions) and there are lots of reasons why a CTA can be infringed by a pilot attempting to fly 100ft below the base.
The point is that pilots are not the sole reasons for infringements. There is a lack of joined up writing within the CAAs ATS, Certification and Pilot standards departments that could continue to cause infringements even if pilots did their best to keep clear.
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC,
With reference to Class D airspace you wrote:
Please supply the reference for this statement.
WF.
With reference to Class D airspace you wrote:
The only reason why the "not above 1500ft" restriction is placed on the VFR flight is because the CAA requires the controller to apply Class C airspace requirements and separate from an IFR flight passing overhead at 2500ft.
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A deafening silence, probably because there is no such "requirement from the CAA".
One of the troubles with these sort of forums is when folk that don't really know what they're talking about post such statements of supposed fact.
Don't believe everything you read
WF.
One of the troubles with these sort of forums is when folk that don't really know what they're talking about post such statements of supposed fact.
Don't believe everything you read
WF.