Zone Infringements - why ?

[flower]

Apologies if you see this on other forum but the more opinions and information gathered make for a better survey.

NATS has established a working group to look at the increase in zone infringements and is looking at ways to prevent them occurring. This is not about a witch hunt but a genuine attempt at looking at why there has been an increase in zone infringements and a look at seeing what we as ATC can do to help prevent them. I am not a member of the group but have been approached to see if i am happy to work with them or add my comments.

Whilst as an ATCO I may have my thoughts on the matter I would like to throw the question back to the GA flying fraternity for their views on why they happen, ie are the charts sufficient, is Navigation now taught correctly , is their an over reliance on GPS ?
So I would welcome your views and thoughts on how they may be better prevented in the future.

Thank you
Carole

[Chilli Monster]

A lack of adequate planning - which may have its roots early on in a pilots training.

How many schools are under financial pressure to increase throughput, and instructors under the same pressure (only get paid when they fly). Ground exams are more and more being left on a "teach yourself" basis. Now - people may have passed the exam, but be honest. how many learnt the subject, and how many have learnt to pass the exam?

Aviation, Airspace, ATC and Aircraft equipment are organic - always changing. You have to keep up with it all to stand a chance of not falling into the traps that are out there.

There are a few simple solutions. Don't just look at a chart - learn how to READ it (the two are different). When you plot the route fly the trip in your head beforehand - if you see a possible problem at that point think about how it could be averted.

If you have a GPS - LEARN how it ALL works, don't just press the "Direct" button.

If you have a VOR, NDB or DME in the aircraft same again - LEARN how to use it. How many people here have thought how they can fix their position just by using DME in an emergency (go on - think about it - the answer's relatively easy).

In short -people need to think out of the box, not inside the one that your PPL groundschool kept you in.

What is needed in addition is some form of mentoring sytem, where the experienced AND knowledgable (the two don't necessarily go together - believe me!) can talk things through face to face with people and have things demonstrated to them. Forums are great - but they lack that "one to one" that is often required to expand someone's knowledge.

[slim_slag]

Clear more traffic through your airspace. If you have a reputation of telling traffic to remain clear, they will go round the airspace, increasing the chance of a bust.

Provide more radar services so you can proactively manage traffic close to your airspace and make sure pilots know they can get it.

Charts. They are just an OS road map with some aviation stuff overlaid. Cluttered with detail that is of no use, for instance don't need every country lane on a VFR chart. Put only relevant info on charts and should make it easier to visually navigate around airspace.

Airspace. Not designed with VFR traffic in mind. Boundaries of any airspace at an airport with a VOR on or near it should be based upon clearly visible surface features, DME arcs, or VOR radials.

Then I guess some pilots are muppets.

[effortless]

I infringed once but in my defence I was PUT and the instructor was RHS. He knows who he is.

All I can say is that I am crap at navigation. I do not fly enough to get much better but I know it so I tend to be well away from anything that looks like trouble. Charts are crowded and can be complex but then they have to be. I always ask what I should look out for even if it makes me look stupid. I don't mind sounding stupid but in the clear. I do mind looking stupid while cutting up a 737.

I was once on a flip which ended with the newish pilot losing his priviledges for a few years. It taught me a lesson which has stayed with me for thirty years.

Too many of us think we know it all, it is the same on the roads.

[alphaalpha]

Carole:

I thought this subject was researched pretty thoroughly in the 'On Track' project about two years ago. A lot of the conclusions have not really been actioned yet, I believe.

Is there much difference between zone infringements and any other sort of airspace busts?

I think we would do better to try to get the best out of 'On Track' before starting another project.

AA.

[Chilli Monster]

Slim - you may not have realised but it's often pilots that infringe zones - not ATC.

So - with that in mind do you actually have any constructive comments to the question asked?

[slim_slag]

Morning chilli,

I suspect its always pilots, never ATC, but I do believe ATC can make a difference.

Question asked was

"Zone infringements - why?" "So I would welcome your views and thoughts on how they may be better prevented in the future. "

I have presented my views and thoughts. I would welcome your constructive thoughts on what I have said.

[Charlie Zulu]

If it were posssible for more traffic to be cleared through the airspace in which flower controls then that traffic would be cleared through. For every occurence of a zone clearance being refused by the controller, for whatever reason, a mandatory form has to be filled in... (I think I am correct in saying this).

Yes I agree with providing more radar services. In fact I would go as far to say that if they could provide something along the lines of "Flight Following" that the American's have then we would be so much happier... Flight Following is just one of those fantastic services that is available free of charge to the GA pilot stateside.

I'm in full agreement with the charts. Too much clutter. Especially airspace above 10,000'. They could probably do something like they do with the quarter mils and only have airspace up to 5,000' (or FL55) depicted BUT increase the height to something like 10,000'. That would incorporate most, if not all, VFR flights...

For instance I showed the Southern UK chart to someone in LA (for anyone who hasn't seen the LA chart then its ever so slightly more complicated looking than London). The first thing they said was, "How the **** do you fly VFR around that area?" whilst pointing to London.

But it also comes down to initial pilot training, just as Chilli Monster suggests...

Personally I would love to see a proper oral type examination introduced before each and every checkride. This ensures one learns the subject material in depth... just look stateside (yes I know I keep referring to FAA land but they do have some things right). Okay their written test is a little bit of a joke but then again our own written tests (I am talking about the PPL *not* ATPL) can be passed by "learning" the confuser. With an in depth oral exam before the skills test (just like the FAA way of things) then that would ensure candidates studied the subject material fully and actually "understand" the subject material.

[Chilli Monster]

Clear more traffic through your airspace. If you have a reputation of telling traffic to remain clear, they will go round the airspace, increasing the chance of a bust.

Not always possible. It's therefore a good idea for the pilot to plan an alternative route in case that happens (read my answer re: "head flying" at the start of this thread)

Provide more radar services so you can proactively manage traffic close to your airspace and make sure pilots know they can get it.

Nice idea - and you'd fund it with.................what? (or should that be by who? A very thorny subject indeed). I shan't even mention how you would staff it (30% shortfall in ATCO's Europewide I believe).

Charts. They are just an OS road map with some aviation stuff overlaid. Cluttered with detail that is of no use, for instance don't need every country lane on a VFR chart. Put only relevant info on charts and should make it easier to visually navigate around airspace.

Don't know what you're using. But the standard ICAO 1:500,000 chart doesn't come anywhere near what you're describing

Airspace. Not designed with VFR traffic in mind. Boundaries of any airspace at an airport with a VOR on or near it should be based upon clearly visible surface features, DME arcs, or VOR radials.

Why should it be? Controlled Airspace (which is what you are referring to) is designed for the protection of IFR traffic inbound and outbound IFR and as such is designed with that purpose in mind. Yes, in an ideal world it would follow the U.S model of being based on an "on airport" VOR/DME facility but with the lack of such a facility on many european airfield that's hardly a possibility. With the gradual retirement of ground based aids in the next 20-30 years it's not exactly sensible (or sound fiscal planning) to start basing airspace construction on facilities whose years are numbered.

[effortless]

So does anyone know how the infringers are broken down? Are they mostly experienced in transit? Inexperienced who haven't the foggiest? Fat git like me out for bimble who hasn't noticed the cross wind? I'd be interested but I know that my definitions aren't helpful.

[flower]

However controversial keep the opinions coming, as i said this is not a witch hunt and it is not about blame but about how we can help prevent them.

[slim_slag]

Ok chilli, so the money and resources aren't there for my first two thoughts. That's fine, but at least we have addressed the issue and it won't be an unanswered question.

How about Class e/f/g corridors? Works elsewhere.

Charts. I was referring to 1:250,000. If you look at the OnTrack charts they have removed a huge amount of unnecessary clutter, the problem is they are not legal for navigation. They are a definitely a vast improvement over the standard chart, and er, designed to help prevent zone infringements.

Controlled airspace can be designed with vfr pilots in mind. So, for instance, 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. No reason any future airspace changes/grabs shouldn't use the same principle wrt navigation beacons, or GPS waypoints.

Found a good example. The southern boundary of the Heathrow surface area could so easily be defined using a radial off the BIG VOR, but it isn't. Why not? Why isn't the eastern arc of the surface area a DME arc off the london vor? TYou could use the M25 as the northern edge of part of the Gatwick 1500ft area. So easy to do, nobody thought VFR when doing airspace.

[tacpot]

Vertical navigation

I'd hope most pilots plan their (horizontal) routes with some reference to their experience levels and the equipment fit in their aircraft. IF inexperienced an only using a compass, perhaps it might be batter to leave a wider margin around controlled airspace than if experienced and able to use GPS/Radio Navigation.

But it's my experience that vertical navigation is not taught well at the PPL level, and indeed I still struggle with a conventional PLOG finding the space to indicate level changes when these are need to avoid controlled airspace. I've tried with map annotations (in increasing amounts of red INK) but this still doesn't leave me feeling that I definitely won't bust controlled airspace. I'm still in search of a better PLOG format for vertical navigation...

Does anyone use VORs to setup a "do not cross" line on their chart, as a way of making sure you are clear of controlled airspace?

tp

[dublinpilot]

Flower,

Purely out of curiosity, what would the breakdown, in your zone, be between


A) Busts that largely track the edge of the zone (indicating someone thinking they are tracking outside the zone), and

B) Busts that go straight through a large part of the zone (indicating someone who was totally unaware of either the zone, or their own position.) ?

Just curious.

dp

[IO540]

One can assume CAS busts are caused by nav errors, or by map reading errors.

I find the latter incredible because IMHO the CAA 1:500k VFR charts are by far the clearest of

Jepp VFR/GPS (lousy choice of colours, occassional ambiguity)
French SIA (poor terrain info)
Swiss ICAO (stupid mixture of ft and m in elevations)
FAA sectionals (one needs to know the implied airspace types)

Only the French 1:500k IGN charts compare for clarity with CAA but they omit stuff above 5500ft, making them IMO useless for serious flying.

The CAA charts are exemplary for clarity and lack of ambiguity. A pilot from Mars could use them right away. Helped by the fact that one really can just about "fly anywhere" in the UK; Class G is plentiful and there is no French-style military airspace all over the place.

So, what causes nav errors? Candidates must include:

1. Lack of currency: Present-day GA scene is too decrepit and so attracts too few people with funding adequate for flying. So, most PPLs fly too little, 10-20hrs/year?

2. Peer pressure to use old fashioned methods: Too many old farts in GA telling everyone that stopwatch+compass is the only real way to do it. This was fine 50 years ago when there was little CAS to bust, and is OK for a pilot who has been flying around the UK for past 30 years - even if he flies very little nowadays. It's not OK for a recent low-currency PPL.

3. Poorly equipped aircraft: most planes flying are old rental spamcans in which very little works. Obviously this argument is on a hiding to nothing if you believe in the old fashioned methods but it also scuppers any attempt to modernise.

It's tempting to blame the often poor training but I can't see how anything else (a full inclusion of GPS in the PPL being the obvious thing to do) can be included without increasing the minimum hours from 45, and few people want that. It would also necessitate mandating panel mounted GPS installation in training aircraft, which the industry would really hate.

Instrument-capable pilots routinely navigate GPS/VOR/ADF/DME when when flying VFR but IMHO it would not be productive to get PPLs to use VOR/DME routinely because, at the very low levels enjoyed by many pilots, one cannot receive the navaids over much of the UK.

A full inclusion of GPS is the way to go, but it will never happen.

[Fuji Abound]

1. Pilots should be trained to use a moving map GPS,

2. The aircraft should be fitted with a good quality moving map and the database updated when necessary,

3. Infringements would very rarely occur.

[WorkingHard]

"I would like to throw the question back to the GA flying fraternity for their views on why they happen" - This seems to pre-suppose that it is GA who are the only culprits. this is not the case as we all know. My view is that navigation in the UK is extremely difficult because of weather and CAS boundaries as described earlier. I am not suggesting there is any easy answer but we clearly need a sort of continuing "on track" operation the recognises the obstacles in the way of VFR navigators.

[hingey]

Never had a zone bust, but the times I have come close were due to wind calculation errors or different wind to what I had planned for altogether. The relevant controller advised that my heading took me into their airspace so I diverted. If an ATCO sees somebody bumbling towards their CAS, they should shout. Obviously, this is no good without the pilot being tuned in. Never forget the 6 P's! If your flying close to CTA, call them on the radio. If your not intending to go close to the zone, at least have their frequency on standby. Tune in and ask if you think you might be a little closer than planned. IMHO, pilot awareness and planning are the key factors in zone busts.

With regards to GPS training, what about a couple optional hours on top of a PPL, like with a night rating? GPS may replace older forms of navigation, in which case the methods they replace will be taken off the syllabus, keeping it at 45 hours. Of course costs probably would go up, whatever happens, but a required rating to use a GPS would reduce the number of GPS blunders.

Though having said that I haven't gone electric yet, and so far have done fine without. Some people are just idiots (no offence anybody )

h

[slim_slag]

So IO540,

You tell us that

"The CAA charts are exemplary for clarity and lack of ambiguity. A pilot from Mars could use them right away."

yet you have to use a moving map gps to avoid busting airspace, and you want to make us lot use one too ! You aren't going to force that one on me.

One thing is for sure, a Martian wanting to learn how to design airspace wouldn't spend long fact finding in the UK.

[HelenD]

The times I have been closest to infringing a zone are when I have been routing back to my base airfield that is within the zone but ATC is too busy with people giving their life stories informing them about their latest problem with their Dash 8 indicating they will miss their takeoff slot or worst of all asking for the latest results of a major sporting event and I cannot get my request to enter the zone in. The few times I thought I would call up early and speak to the approach controllers rather than tower I get told to use a different airield instead. If you are concentrating on trying to get a call in you may not notice that you are getting very close to the zone. I have noticed that you do appear to get a better service if you ask for an IFR rejoin in preference to a VFR one.
One other thing to bear in mind with PPL traffic is we are usually single pilot ops and do not have the luxury except on training flights of the First Officer/ Captain doing the radio while we or the autopilot do the flying.