I infringed today . . .
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 467 Likes
on
247 Posts
Originally Posted by Bravo73
Final 3 Greens,
Agree with all of your sentiments (and great advice!) but just to clarify: if you are actually lost, tell D&D that you are lost. Don't try and 'hide' it by asking for a 'training fix'.
Give D&D the full info from the off. It would seem that some of the time, it's these bogus 'training fixes' that wind up the 'skygods' on 121.5.
HTH,
B73
Agree with all of your sentiments (and great advice!) but just to clarify: if you are actually lost, tell D&D that you are lost. Don't try and 'hide' it by asking for a 'training fix'.
Give D&D the full info from the off. It would seem that some of the time, it's these bogus 'training fixes' that wind up the 'skygods' on 121.5.
HTH,
B73
CAP 413 contains the following:
1.8 Training Fix
Pilots who do not wish to carry out a practice emergency but only wish to confirm
their position may request a ‘Training Fix’ on 121.5 MHz. This ‘Training Fix’ is
secondary in importance to actual emergency calls but takes precedence over
practice emergency calls in the event of simultaneous incidents.
The self-styled "skygods" are wrong to complain, in actual fact they themselves make most incorrect use of 121.5 mhz. The CAA agree with that view and recently (after some complaints from commercial pilots) carried out a survey then put out a letter telling them in not very couched terms to wind their necks in. (This was obviously not read by the so-called professional morons repeatedly asking for World Cup football results on the emergency freq. a short while back).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you.
I know where to come if I ever need reassurance ! Thanks to everyone for the support - it's good to know I'm not the only numpty out there!
I went into the school this morning as planned, and got another healthy dose of reassurance from my FI (and the other FI's) . . . . . . and then a 45 minute flight.
The weather was marginal, so we were in the circuit for several touch and go's. I now feel much better about this episode, and the best bit is; I managed to fly around the correct field !
Wx permitting - dual to Cranfield tommorrow . . .
Cheers all.
I went into the school this morning as planned, and got another healthy dose of reassurance from my FI (and the other FI's) . . . . . . and then a 45 minute flight.
The weather was marginal, so we were in the circuit for several touch and go's. I now feel much better about this episode, and the best bit is; I managed to fly around the correct field !
Wx permitting - dual to Cranfield tommorrow . . .
Cheers all.
Originally Posted by Maxflyer
I mistook Duxford for Cambridge on one of my navexs. It was only the fact that I didn't think Cambridge had a concorde there that woke me up and prevented me from becaming a laughing stock
...although some would say that I am a laughing stock!
...although some would say that I am a laughing stock!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After qualifying if at anytime you think you are relying too much on a GPS. Hand your GPS to a flying buddy. And navigate 100% visually, let your buddy correct you if you are going to infringe any airspace.
The day they stick large visual idents on towns, lakes and roads is the day I'll stop banging on about the CAA's regressive attitude to GPS.
Heading and Time! Heading and Time! Heading and Time!
What use are halfway positions unless they are drawn on the ground?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds to me like you messed up, then did exactly the right things to sort it out, just like others have said, so well done on that score.
Me - well, the last time I infringed controlled airspace, a few years ago, was very similar to what you did. I didn't turn at my planned turning point because of a large CB overhead the planned turning point. I went around the CB, then resumed my planned heading, cross-checked that the large dual carriageway was on my left hand side where I expected it - only it was the wrong dual carriageway, and the one which was now down my left hand side took me through the corner of Heathrow's zone. So I know exactly where you're coming from.
Although I understand where people are coming from when they say GPS is the answer to all navigation problems, I don't agree. GPS is an great additional tool to add to the repertoire. But what has happened in this case is that the primary tool - ded reckoning backed up by visual nav - hasn't worked.
There are two reasons why Stik bust controlled airspace:
The first, as Whopity says, is not sticking to his planned heading/time. In this case, he had to deviate from his plan to avoid gliders, but he needs tools for doing that and getting back on track. E.g., turn 30 degrees left, fly for one minutes, then resume original heading. Once clear of gliders, turn 30 degrees right, fly for one minute, and resume original heading again. This will put you back on track, a little later than originally planned. But it gets much harder if doing this means you miss your turning point, so:
The second reason is the way Stik fixed his position. He looked out the window, saw towns where he thought they ought to be, and, in his own words: "As everything seemed to ‘fit’, I maintained the heading". What he didn't do was look in detail at the towns he found, working from the big picture (the towns) down to the smaller details (the roads in and out of the towns, railway lines, shapes of the towns, towns' surroundings, etc). We've probably all experienced situations where we've made things fit even though they've been wrong, and it's only by looking first at the big picture, then at the detail, that you can avoid this trap.
Once Stik has learnt these techniques and become comfortable with them, that's the time to start introducing the GPS to suppliment them.
FFF
----------------
Me - well, the last time I infringed controlled airspace, a few years ago, was very similar to what you did. I didn't turn at my planned turning point because of a large CB overhead the planned turning point. I went around the CB, then resumed my planned heading, cross-checked that the large dual carriageway was on my left hand side where I expected it - only it was the wrong dual carriageway, and the one which was now down my left hand side took me through the corner of Heathrow's zone. So I know exactly where you're coming from.
Although I understand where people are coming from when they say GPS is the answer to all navigation problems, I don't agree. GPS is an great additional tool to add to the repertoire. But what has happened in this case is that the primary tool - ded reckoning backed up by visual nav - hasn't worked.
There are two reasons why Stik bust controlled airspace:
The first, as Whopity says, is not sticking to his planned heading/time. In this case, he had to deviate from his plan to avoid gliders, but he needs tools for doing that and getting back on track. E.g., turn 30 degrees left, fly for one minutes, then resume original heading. Once clear of gliders, turn 30 degrees right, fly for one minute, and resume original heading again. This will put you back on track, a little later than originally planned. But it gets much harder if doing this means you miss your turning point, so:
The second reason is the way Stik fixed his position. He looked out the window, saw towns where he thought they ought to be, and, in his own words: "As everything seemed to ‘fit’, I maintained the heading". What he didn't do was look in detail at the towns he found, working from the big picture (the towns) down to the smaller details (the roads in and out of the towns, railway lines, shapes of the towns, towns' surroundings, etc). We've probably all experienced situations where we've made things fit even though they've been wrong, and it's only by looking first at the big picture, then at the detail, that you can avoid this trap.
Once Stik has learnt these techniques and become comfortable with them, that's the time to start introducing the GPS to suppliment them.
FFF
----------------
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done & thank you for sharing, lets hope others learn from it
Oh Stick&Rudder, being ex "plod" traffic non I know ever look for a reason to give a ticket to a genuine driver, who's made, and admitted a mistake, only the ones that try to lie about it !
TV
Oh Stick&Rudder, being ex "plod" traffic non I know ever look for a reason to give a ticket to a genuine driver, who's made, and admitted a mistake, only the ones that try to lie about it !
TV
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity
I am sure that if you examined the infringement statistics you would discover that a high proportion involve pilots using GPS
Come on, you know me better that that. Supporting evidence please.
I am sure that if you examined the infringement statistics you would discover that a high proportion involve pilots using GPS
Come on, you know me better that that. Supporting evidence please.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time I've infringed (so far) was when the GPS packed up and I didn't think to steer further away from the nearby airspace boundary while using steam aids in IMC and ended up half a mile inside CAS, fortunately I had a service from the zone in question who were kindness itself.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sensitive/
TV (now that particular achronym coupled with the knowledge of your previous employment condures up a multitude of images!)
The sentiment was that 121.5 is not something to be afraid of.
I'm sure you did your best in representing the positive side of Policing, but in this situation I considered it a useful analogy.
The sentiment was that 121.5 is not something to be afraid of.
I'm sure you did your best in representing the positive side of Policing, but in this situation I considered it a useful analogy.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: exmouth
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the webley please
unforgiveable, time to draw the flying club Webley and take the gentlemans way out. Joking , the reality is everyone cocks up now and again, your turn today. play the rubber ball and bounce back, its how you earn your wings
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: In the SIM
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stik,
All good advice here, and like a lot of people have said, we have all done things in our flying careers that we are perhaps not proud of, but we learn from them.
Anyway, I have first hand experience of your flying skills, so be told, put it behind you, onwards and upwards
.
I am looking forward to that pre-test when your qualifier is done, more spinning for you sir.
All the best, see you soon.
All good advice here, and like a lot of people have said, we have all done things in our flying careers that we are perhaps not proud of, but we learn from them.
Anyway, I have first hand experience of your flying skills, so be told, put it behind you, onwards and upwards
.I am looking forward to that pre-test when your qualifier is done, more spinning for you sir
.All the best, see you soon
.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your incident has been reported on Captain Jon's site. Looks like some good advice here
http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/kiss/askcaptainjon.htm
I think it was 'Just inside Luton CTZ'
http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/kiss/askcaptainjon.htm
I think it was 'Just inside Luton CTZ'
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Whopity
I am sure that if you examined the infringement statistics you would discover that a high proportion involve pilots using GPS
Come on, you know me better that that. Supporting evidence please.
I am sure that if you examined the infringement statistics you would discover that a high proportion involve pilots using GPS
Come on, you know me better that that. Supporting evidence please.
Of the infringements looked at in the report 96 or 58.2% were GPS equipped. There are various other numbers to be found in the report as well but if those figures are carried over to all infringements then there are a lot of aircraft carrying GPS still managing to infringe CAS.
Correct use of a GPS unit, and that includes having an up to date database, may be a large part of a solution to this issue but it's by no means the total answer that is sometimes suggested.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Of the infringements looked at in the report 96 or 58.2% were GPS equipped.
The report does not specify the amount or % that were USING the GPS kit.
100% of aircraft which transgressed were equipped with landing gear.
GPS features much less than navigation issues and the (rather stupid) case study of a pilot reported GPS problem is clearly a human factors problem, not a GPS problem. Shock horror, the GPS will navigate you to where you program it to go .... seems to me that it worked perfectly and the issue was lack of double checking.
One could easily cite an example where the PIC landed wheels up because he forgot to extend the gear - does this mean that retracs are the spawn of the devil?
The report does not specify the amount or % that were USING the GPS kit.
100% of aircraft which transgressed were equipped with landing gear.
GPS features much less than navigation issues and the (rather stupid) case study of a pilot reported GPS problem is clearly a human factors problem, not a GPS problem. Shock horror, the GPS will navigate you to where you program it to go .... seems to me that it worked perfectly and the issue was lack of double checking.
One could easily cite an example where the PIC landed wheels up because he forgot to extend the gear - does this mean that retracs are the spawn of the devil?
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 24th Aug 2006 at 19:34.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got the figures slightly wrong above.
47.9% were reportedly GPS equiped and 40.6% reported using GPS as an aid to navigation.
That still highlights an issue with GPS usage that needs to be addressed somewhere, which it is to an extent further towards the end of the report or alternatively...cue IO540
Regarding addressing the issue(s) though, interestingly the report is over three years old now. I wonder how many, if any, of its recommendations have been acted upon?
47.9% were reportedly GPS equiped and 40.6% reported using GPS as an aid to navigation.
That still highlights an issue with GPS usage that needs to be addressed somewhere, which it is to an extent further towards the end of the report or alternatively...cue IO540
Regarding addressing the issue(s) though, interestingly the report is over three years old now. I wonder how many, if any, of its recommendations have been acted upon?
Last edited by Roffa; 24th Aug 2006 at 20:26.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am off for a while so this is a quick reply only. Last time i read the report it reported 18% as using a "moving map". The others were presumably a non moving map camping shop style GPS; useless for situational awareness. Remember a lot of people carry a GPS planning to switch it on only if they get lost.......
I have no time to read it again for about 2 wks. Got 3000nm to fly, and 100% of it with GPS.
It's a near-useless report anyway, with the usual prejudiced categories like "over reliance on GPS" and unprofessional stuff like get-home-itis.
They should have analysed what exactly people did wrong to get lost; then one could learn something from it. The CAA should also go on a basic stats course.
I recall a recommendation in there that GPS should go into the PPL syllabus; very funny!!! Zero chance of that ever happening.
Nothing will ever change in this business. Too many vested interests. Schools just (mostly) want the £8000 from each punter and anyway most new PPLs don't go anywhere, so why bother? The CAA will do whatever the schools want.
The only way for an individual pilot to move on is to learn from somebody a bit more experienced, and yes buy a decent GPS
I have no time to read it again for about 2 wks. Got 3000nm to fly, and 100% of it with GPS.
It's a near-useless report anyway, with the usual prejudiced categories like "over reliance on GPS" and unprofessional stuff like get-home-itis.
They should have analysed what exactly people did wrong to get lost; then one could learn something from it. The CAA should also go on a basic stats course.
I recall a recommendation in there that GPS should go into the PPL syllabus; very funny!!! Zero chance of that ever happening.
Nothing will ever change in this business. Too many vested interests. Schools just (mostly) want the £8000 from each punter and anyway most new PPLs don't go anywhere, so why bother? The CAA will do whatever the schools want.
The only way for an individual pilot to move on is to learn from somebody a bit more experienced, and yes buy a decent GPS
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by IO540
The CAA should go on a basic stats course.
But of course it comes down to money - doing stats properly is expensive, and if it's a public body doing it it's your money - how much extra tax are you volunteering to pay?
(A real life example. Residents wanted a road closed to trucks during the night. The council thought it needed to at least know whether there were any trucks using that road at night. So it stuck two people in a parked car with a clipboard to count lorries for just one night, and on the basis of that data the decision was made.
Clearly completely useless statistics (other than the absolute observation that the number of trucks wasn't zero).
Why use people not a camera and a computer? Apparently there's no off the shelf image analysis software which can distinguish, at night, between the various categories of HCV and other large vehicles to get a reasonable count. Why does it need to be two people not just one? H&S nazis.
The cost of getting reasonable stats on which to base this decision would have been at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost of implementing it. What about cost/benefit? - was the benefit to the residents of not having the trucks outweighed or not by the cost to the truckers of having to drive a few yards further or time their journeys a few tens of minutes later? Haven't a clue.
Lots of public decisions are made like that.)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gps????
Originally Posted by QDMQDMQDM
VOR?! Sod that and just get a GPS as soon as you are qualified. It ain't the be-all, but add that to a map and a compass and your chances of infringing are much reduced. I cannot believe the attitude to GPS in some corners in this country.
Why would you voluntarily fly with one arm tied behind your back? It's the same kind of attitude as kept parachutes out of planes in the first world war: just isn't gentlemanly, don't you know?
QDM
Why would you voluntarily fly with one arm tied behind your back? It's the same kind of attitude as kept parachutes out of planes in the first world war: just isn't gentlemanly, don't you know?
QDM