CAA 500K Chart Amendments

[dublinpilot]

As a number of amendments on the new 500K Chart for southern England affect the areas between Ireland & the UK, which I pass through going to the UK, I thought I better sit down an mark the changes to my new chart.

Here is the CAA's page on the amendments.

Now I am not too interested in marking changes in elevation and such. I am more concerned amount changing airspace that I might bust, or might have to explain why I went in there.

The first one I came across was this:
WICKENBY Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) Circle radius 2NM centred on longest runway (03/21) 531900N 0002059W

However having checked the chart, I found an ATZ already marked on the chart. Hummm I though...maybe it's me....or maybe they just made a mistake.

Next one I looked at was:
The airfield at LLANBEDR is closed, and its associated Danger Area - EG D202 - is dis-established, with immediate effect. Delete all details in toto at 524842N 0040725W

No problem, a little note has now been added that EG D202 no longer exists.

Next one I looked at was this:
Replace Lincolnshire AIAA coordinates in toto with: Lincolnshire 530526N 0000000E – 530219N 0000000E - 525648N 0000949W – 525206N 0000610W – 524900N 0000106E – 524900N 0005730W – 525014N 0005722W – 525121N 0005725W – 525421N 0010006W – 525901N 0010918W – 525943N 0011000W – 531838N 0011000W – 530526N 0000000E

Now this is quite difficult and time consuming to plot, and I really wish they'd give a picture of the new airspace to make it easier to plot. Anyway, I stuck with it, and was rather surprised to note that each point matched the points already shown on the chart. OK, maybe one or two were a little less than 1 minute out.....but I've figured that is chart inaccuracy rather than a chance. Could they really be bothered to change an AIAA by less than 1 minute? I doubt it.

So once again, it appears no change is actually necessary.

Next one I looked at was:
EG D201 ABERPORTH - AMENDED LATERAL LIMITS
The following details amend 500k South and 250k Sheets 5 & 7.
530300N 0053000W - 530300N 0045319W - 524500N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W -523316N 0041200W - 521600N 0041200W - 521000N 0042942W - thence clockwise along the arc of a circle radius 3 nm centred on 520830N 0043355W to 520840N 0043847W - 520903N 0050057W - 524417N 0053000W - 530300N 0053000W.


Now this one has it's heading bold-ed, so it must be important. But once again, I find myself plotting out D201 exactly as it exists on the chart.

What is going on? Am I missing something in a bad way? Am I doing something silly?

Should I persevere in checking this stealth changes that don't seem to exist?

Has anyone else gone through them all?

Why don't they publish a graphic of the new area to make it easier?

dp

[IO540]

I wouldn't bother plotting an AIAA. The number of planes which the RAF can get airborne in total doesn't create a statistically significant hazard to aviation

[funfly]

We did a poll on another forum recently and very few people seem to check the chart updates regularly and we couldn't find anyone who actually drew anything on their charts!
'course I always does

It would certainly be a great help if the information was presented in a more user friendly way (cf grid references) I could even suggest that important changes be accompanied by little self-adhesive stickers to stick over the altered section on your chart - perhaps one of the chart suppliers would think this is a good idea for a subscription service?

[dwshimoda]

Funfly - great idea on the little stickers, but I don't agree it should be a subscription service.

For example, Pooleys send out free updates for the duration of the flight guide that you buy - If the CAA are going to change maps annually, which seems to be the case currently, then any mid-point alterations should also be sent out as an update. If the CAA are as keen as they say to help people avoid airspace infringments, etc, then this could only promote saftey.

DW

[SkyHawk-N]

I need some help amending my chart. How do I go about removing the Coltishall MATZ and ATZ?

Even though this is not yet mentioned on the CAA Amendments site!!

[dublinpilot]

I need some help amending my chart. How do I go about removing the Coltishall MATZ and ATZ?

Going by my experience, when you check they will probably be already removed from your chart! The ones I have checked have already been incorporated into the chart, and don't require any amendment

[rjt194]

Originally Posted by funfly

We did a poll on another forum recently and very few people seem to check the chart updates regularly and we couldn't find anyone who actually drew anything on their charts!
'course I always does

It would certainly be a great help if the information was presented in a more user friendly way (cf grid references) I could even suggest that important changes be accompanied by little self-adhesive stickers to stick over the altered section on your chart - perhaps one of the chart suppliers would think this is a good idea for a subscription service?

I think that the CAA could learn a few lessons from the Admiralty on chart updates. They make colour blocks available to download and print-out of any major or complex changes issued in NM's. Its also mandatory to keep your charts up to date - something which doesn't seem to be the case in aviation (or at least enforced). I remember getting funny looks at my school when asked if there was a standard way to update charts (maritime charts are updated in purple ink and the update number and date written at the bottom left of the chart so you know when it was last updated).

[Mike Cross]

Suggestions re the charts can be sent by clicking the feedback link on this page.
The VFR chart editor is a lady by the name of Jo Suter who can frequently be seen on the CAA stand at shows. She's off to Florida next month to get her PPL (she's a cartographer not a pilot by professsion). I'm sure we all wish her good luck with it.

Mike

[IO540]

A CAA employee going to the USA to do a PPL

She will be flying an N-reg next

[dublinpilot]

Having done a little more work this evening, I can further confirm that the following are also already marked on the charts. Neither require amendment or corrections.

EG D201 ABERPORTH - AMENDED LATERAL LIMITS
The following details amend 500k South and 250k Sheets 5 & 7.
530300N 0053000W - 530300N 0045319W - 524500N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W -523316N 0041200W - 521600N 0041200W - 521000N 0042942W - thence clockwise along the arc of a circle radius 3 nm centred on 520830N 0043355W to 520840N 0043847W - 520903N 0050057W - 524417N 0053000W - 530300N 0053000W.

EG D201C/D ABERPORTH
The following details amend 500k South & North and 250k Sheet 5
Add new DAs:
EG D201C Lateral Limits
525019N 0045319W - 524500N 0044018W - 524500N 0045319W - 525019N 0045319W.
EG D201D Lateral Limits
531035N 0053000W - 530300N 0051612W - 530300N 0053000W - 531035N 0053000W.
EG D201C Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/ FL145.
EG D201D Upper/Lower Limits (ft)
Up to Unlimited/FL 55
EG D201C/D Activity
Military and Trials aircraft (including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), under range radar control, being vectored for precision weapons' release.
EG D201C/D Hours
Mon-Fri 0800-2300 Winter (Summer 1hr earlier); and as notified.
EG D201C/D Service
DACS: Aberporth Information on 119.650 MHz; Swanwick Military on 135.150 MHz.
EG D201C/D Remarks
SI 1976/64. See ENR 1-1-5-2, para 1.4 for information on Pilotless Target Aircraft. .




In fact after reviewing all the airspace changes in the list, the only changes I have had to make was to delete Danger Area D202, and add in the new Luton airspace. In fairness to the CAA, they do show a helpful diagram for the new Luton airspace.

If would have been really helpful and time saving though, if they didn't list corrections that they have already included on the chart though

dp

[jabberwok]

D201 changed alright - when airway B39 was replaced by L18.

B39 ran from DUB - RADNO but L18 is a direct track between DUB and BCN. The Cardigan Bay danger areas were all changed to fit the new airway. All this was in the AIRAC of 16/03/2006

[HGFC1]

Originally Posted by dublinpilot

Now I am not too interested in marking changes in elevation and such.

I find that statement frightening and rather irresponsible to say the least. Why are you not interested? In the (extremely unlikely) event of someone planting a 300' mast on the top of Snowdon, can we expect you to be the first to crash into it?

[dublinpilot]

D201 changed alright - when airway B39 was replaced by L18.
B39 ran from DUB - RADNO but L18 is a direct track between DUB and BCN. The Cardigan Bay danger areas were all changed to fit the new airway. All this was in the AIRAC of 16/03/2006

Jabberwok,

You are correct I am sure. The danger area may have changed. But my point is that it has not changed since the current chart was produced. It is correctly displayed on the current chart, and therefore no correction or amendment is necessary to the current chart. So why publish a correction/amendment?

HGFC1,

I find that statement frightening and rather irresponsible to say the least. Why are you not interested? In the (extremely unlikely) event of someone planting a 300' mast on the top of Snowdon, can we expect you to be the first to crash into it?

Well for one thing I don't fly 300' above ground level. It's illegal in the aircraft that I fly. I tend to fly as high as possible in any case.

Secondly, you need to assume that there are obstacles up to at least 800' above ground level. This is because obstacles below 300' AGL are not shown, and elevations change in 500ft. Therefore an undisclosed obstacle can be up to 798' AGL and not be shown on the chart.

Thirdly, I fly with my eyes open, looking for such things.

Fourthly, I did look through the list for any new obstacles of sufficient height that I thought they might cause me concern. I didn't find any, and as such didn't amend them.

Here are a sample of the amendments that I didn't make:

Confirmation of LONDON/City elevation - 19ft amsl

BROOKLANDS - delete all reference and site details at 512103N 0002812W - show as disused aerodrome

SHOBDON elevation changed to 317ft amsl - from 318ft amsl - plus slight amendment to ATZ - from 521430N 0025253W to 521430N 0025252W

Delete multi/unlit obstacle 651(313) at 530903N 0000343W

Amend Multi/Unlit obstacle at 510627N 0010504E from 804(211) to 817(230)



Now if you think I'm going to crash on landing at Shobdon because it dropped by 1ft, or hit an obstacle because it changed elevation by 13ft, or one that has disappeared.....

If fact......there are no new obstacles above 500agl. Have you even looked at the list of amendments, never mind actually make them?

You of course are free to amend as you wish, but I feel pretty safe with my amendments

dp

[PPRuNe Radar]

Secondly, you need to assume that there are obstacles up to at least 800' above ground level. This is because obstacles below 300' AGL are not shown, and elevations change in 500ft. Therefore an undisclosed obstacle can be up to 798' AGL and not be shown on the chart.

Simply not true. Obstacles more than 300' AGL will be shown (unless the CAA omitted them in error).

Elevations are shown as spot heights, and don't change in 500' increments as you state.

Relief elevations are shown in bands (SL-500', 1000'-2000', 2000'-3000', 3000'-4000', 4000'-5000'). Obviously not all bands are needed on each chart The highest elevation shown will be annotated in the key at the foot of the chart, along with its location.

So if the elevation at a geographical point is actually 1001', it will appear in the 1000'-2000' band colour. As a raw calculation, a pilot could then use that to assume the maximum elevation is 1999', then add on the maximum uncharted obstacle height of 300'. Or assume an obstacle elevation of 2300' in realistic terms. Of course in reality, the maximum elevation (including unknown obstacles) is only 1301'.

To provide a bit more accuracy, the CAA also provide Maximum Elevation Figures for each part of the mapping grid. This takes out the excessive 'rounding up' witnessed in the simple calculation above. The MEF uses the highest known feature in the quadrangle, including terrain and known obstacles, plus allowing for unknown obstacles (up to 300'). This is then displayed as a two digit code, denoting thousands of feet and whole hundreds of feet.

As an example, the MEF for the quadrangle containing Dublin is 31. This is based on the highest obstacle, a mast with an elevation of 2890' (380' AGL), plus 300' for unknown obstacles. I assume the CAA round down to the nearest hundred when making this calculation. I guess their logic is that the extra 90' (in this example) should not make a great difference to a VFR flight !!

[dublinpilot]

Elevations are shown as spot heights, and don't change in 500' increments as you state.

Relief elevations are shown in bands (SL-500', 1000'-2000', 2000'-3000', 3000'-4000', 4000'-5000')

PPR,

You are quite correct. I stand corrected. My 800 should should be just be 300'.

dp

[PPRuNe Radar]

No problems

That's the strength of this Forum, having a very wide knowledge base and a heap of members with experience in all aspects of aviation, and the free flow of information.

For my own part, I have learned a lot about GPS capability from some of the posters here.

[mark147]

Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar

As an example, the MEF for the quadrangle containing Dublin is 31. This is based on the highest obstacle, a mast with an elevation of 2890' (380' AGL), plus 300' for unknown obstacles. I assume the CAA round down to the nearest hundred when making this calculation. I guess their logic is that the extra 90' (in this example) should not make a great difference to a VFR flight !!

That's not quite right. The 300' allowance for unknown obstacles would only be added go a ground elevation, not to a known obstacle. It's not the 2,890' amsl mast that's determining the MEF in that quadrangle, it's the high ground at elevation 2,788', plus 300' = 3,088' which then gets rounded up to 3,100'.

Mark

[knobbygb]

Isn't the overlying issue that having a chart valid for 12 months is possibly too long if some pilots are clearly not keeping them up-to-date?

I originally learned to fly in the UK and have since done quite a few hours in the US. At first I hated the flimsy non-laminated charts and yearned for CAA-style ones, but having flown my last 60 or 70 hours 'over there', I now know which ones I'd choose. Don't want to start a UK/US debate, and yes, our charts are better in many ways, but would it be better to have cheaper paper charts which could be thrown away and replaced with crisp new up-to-date ones every 3 months? They're easier to fold (and smaller to handle), easier to write on (both day-to-day and when updates ARE required) and just, well... easier all around. OK, there's probably a cost issue (as usual with UK GA) as theirs probably outsell ours ba a factor of may 100:1, but... well... just an idea.

[Aussie Andy]

would it be better to have cheaper paper charts which could be thrown away and replaced with crisp new up-to-date ones every 3 months?

Good point Knobby, I agree...
Andy

[PPRuNe Radar]

Me too UK Mil use a new chart strip for each mission. Would be great to have that luxury printed in our own homes ... after all, we taxpayers have paid for all that info already