200th infringement
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Bose, I probably get 90% of the requests to transit when others may only get 70% through, because I have no problem with doing it - subject to workload on the RT.
You keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in how a busy TC Approach unit functions. For example; Tea and coffee have been banned for a long time and "Nuts" is now the magazine of choice.
I have been on CAS infringement working groups at TC, given talks on how to transit the zone to the HCGB/RAF etc so I do try more than others to fix the problem.
Someone who goes straight through the zone without calling anyone is not a scenario developed by ATCOs not wishing to talk to GA who want a FIS outside CAS.
Perhaps the "industry" as a whole should look at how flying is taught. Not just Nav, but pre-flight planning etc.
My God, if you think that I am the worse at this, my watch dubbed me "pilot's pal" for getting so many aircraft through the zone!!
You keep demonstrating your lack of knowledge in how a busy TC Approach unit functions. For example; Tea and coffee have been banned for a long time and "Nuts" is now the magazine of choice.
I have been on CAS infringement working groups at TC, given talks on how to transit the zone to the HCGB/RAF etc so I do try more than others to fix the problem.
Someone who goes straight through the zone without calling anyone is not a scenario developed by ATCOs not wishing to talk to GA who want a FIS outside CAS.
Perhaps the "industry" as a whole should look at how flying is taught. Not just Nav, but pre-flight planning etc.
My God, if you think that I am the worse at this, my watch dubbed me "pilot's pal" for getting so many aircraft through the zone!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Actually I was not blaming controllers for the busts, I was blaming the obvious lack of service that some are providing for exacerbating the situation.
I also made no comment about tea, coffee or buns. I have done the tour and know how hard controllers work.
There are number of reasons that keep cropping up for airspace busts. Lack of experiance on the part of the pilot. Poor preflight planning, over reliance on GPS (i.e poor preflight planning). You also have the situation where people plan a crossing of CAS and when they are refused they are in a situation where they have to replan on the fly. Again poor advance prep but this leaves the ill prepared or inexperianced pilot in trouble especially when trying to plot a new route around the SE corner.
Some pilots will never have slick RT as long as their arse points down but they does not mean they should get treated any differently to mr slick.
Mr slick also cocks up, last week when crossing london at FL100 I listed to a controller maul a girl driving a 737 - "XXXX squawk you have with ident" from the girl, sounded very slick, controller proceeds to roast her for giving an ident when unrequested despite asking for ident for every other aircraft for the last 15 minutes on contact.
As I see it we are all users of the sky and I expect to recieve the same class of service from a controller as the 737 behind me. Certainly in the aiways system it has been my experiance that I am treated with courtesy and professionalism.
I also made no comment about tea, coffee or buns. I have done the tour and know how hard controllers work.
There are number of reasons that keep cropping up for airspace busts. Lack of experiance on the part of the pilot. Poor preflight planning, over reliance on GPS (i.e poor preflight planning). You also have the situation where people plan a crossing of CAS and when they are refused they are in a situation where they have to replan on the fly. Again poor advance prep but this leaves the ill prepared or inexperianced pilot in trouble especially when trying to plot a new route around the SE corner.
Some pilots will never have slick RT as long as their arse points down but they does not mean they should get treated any differently to mr slick.
Mr slick also cocks up, last week when crossing london at FL100 I listed to a controller maul a girl driving a 737 - "XXXX squawk you have with ident" from the girl, sounded very slick, controller proceeds to roast her for giving an ident when unrequested despite asking for ident for every other aircraft for the last 15 minutes on contact.
As I see it we are all users of the sky and I expect to recieve the same class of service from a controller as the 737 behind me. Certainly in the aiways system it has been my experiance that I am treated with courtesy and professionalism.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 39
Likes: 2
From: warwickshire
Its a shame that the cash is not available for controllers to do PPL training as I believe they used to in the black and white days. It may give some a better idea of what a pilot is sometimes going through. When I did my IR I had a new ATC girl jump in the back and come along for the ride, she was horrified I wouldn't be able to look out of the window for the next two hours. It certainly showed her that there is more to it than moving the maggot around her radar screen.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
At the risk of starting a new thread bose-X, pilots should NEVER ident unless asked to by ATC, not that I'm saying the controller you mention was correct in his actions 'cos I don't know the exact circumstances.
Going back to AlanM's point about a 'super LARS' for the LTMA area, there was originally a plan for Swanwick to have 10 'FIR radar' positions; presumably the cost issue meant this idea had to be binned, but it does seem to me that if some sort of LARS was available everywhere under the LTMA rather than just to the east, southwest and Mig Alley, it could prevent a lot of these infringements.
I've actually already suggested a system which could be brought in using existing resources as far as possible eg piping existing radars into one unit and using spare consoles at that unit; it'll probably come to nothing; nobody ever listens to my suggestions and there's no (to my knowledge) staff suggestion scheme any more which would discuss all suggestions re their merit.
Going back to AlanM's point about a 'super LARS' for the LTMA area, there was originally a plan for Swanwick to have 10 'FIR radar' positions; presumably the cost issue meant this idea had to be binned, but it does seem to me that if some sort of LARS was available everywhere under the LTMA rather than just to the east, southwest and Mig Alley, it could prevent a lot of these infringements.
I've actually already suggested a system which could be brought in using existing resources as far as possible eg piping existing radars into one unit and using spare consoles at that unit; it'll probably come to nothing; nobody ever listens to my suggestions and there's no (to my knowledge) staff suggestion scheme any more which would discuss all suggestions re their merit.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
...think you have to be "known traffic" to be VFRvIFR with traffic info mate!
Interesting to see the number of minutes that departures are stopped when unknown aircraft enter the zones. With one departure every 45 secs would be interesting to see the real impact of me stopping LHR deps for 7 minutes earlier in the year as someone went CHT-BUR without calling anyone. 8x deps? Average of 150 pax per aircraft?
Interesting to see the number of minutes that departures are stopped when unknown aircraft enter the zones. With one departure every 45 secs would be interesting to see the real impact of me stopping LHR deps for 7 minutes earlier in the year as someone went CHT-BUR without calling anyone. 8x deps? Average of 150 pax per aircraft?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Traffic information only to IFR on an unknown infringing and conflicting aircraft is not considered acceptable in A or D, if separation is at or below the above then ATC must try to maintain or increase to the above minimum.
WF.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Another one for the engineers. The reasonable failure modes for an altitude encoder. I can imagine it would be quite common for the encoder to be out of calibration by a few hundred feet, however, for larger errors is it likely to be 'just a bit more out' or is it fundamentally wrong? What are the odds of the Mode C being out by 1200 feet as compared to being out by 10000 feet?
Although I understand the rules, it does seem really odd that unknown traffic with Mode C of 2.4 under a 2500 ft TMA ledge is treated as outside controlled airspace and one Mode C of 2.6 needs to have traffic at FL80 to be separated - and Mode A returns are assumed safe unless they are in a zone!
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
From: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
The last time I took a load of ppruners to West Drayton, we were shown three clips of infringements. They were pretyy eye opening to say the least. The Heathrow one was serious although I started laughing as I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was unbelievable.
WF. I wonder if it is possible to see the clip on here or even better all three. What are the chances mate?
WF. I wonder if it is possible to see the clip on here or even better all three. What are the chances mate?
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
How often has any pilot or ATC seen a corrupt mode C. Not incorrect altimeter setting but corrupt mode C?
Of the two cases I have seen, both were indicating FL300+ when flying below 3000ft.
One can not claim a loss of separation in class D between VFR and IFR because the standard separation is simply do not collide by looking out your window and spotting the traffic! It may be an airprox but not a loss of ATC separation. Where a VFR flight infringes then the atc unit may not notice and may not pass traffic information. Traffic information is to be passed to IFR flights on relevant VFR flights. Now if the traffic info is not passed by a procedural unit then hey what do you expect. However, if a radar unit fails to pass traffic information on what they see then they have failed to provide the required service and any subsequent airporx is not simply pilot error.
Of course, UK VMC minima contrary to the ICAO standard permits VFR flight at the cloud base in class D. Not much chance for the IFR flight to spot the traffic just as it becomes visual then!
As I said previously, it is the system and the answer is not as simple as the pilots being at fault. Until the complete system is tackled then safety will continue to suffer.
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
I don't think that it is just a question of a margin of error in the Mode C that gets us trying to achieve 5000ft on unknowns....... It is also the unpredictability of the level and intentions of the unknown.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
VFR/IFR or Unknown aircraft
OK Chaps a little lesson on CAA regs!
It does not matter what flight rules the unknown (or infringing aircraft) is flying under. What matters is what are the flight rules of the traffic that the controller is working.
If the aircraft is IFR and in CAS it must be receiving a Control service. If the aircraft is recieving a RADAR control service the controller is required to take 5nm or 5,000ft against any unknown traffic that there is evidence to show is in the Controlled airspace concerned. (MATS PT1)
There is no discretion from the CAA, although they accept that an infringement may occur at the worst possible time and that the required separation may not be achieved.
Therefore if you have an IFR aircraft in CAS class "A" through to "D" the controller must avoid the unknown traffic.
P.S as for the clips of infringers it is highly unlikely that they will be realeased to a public forum where anyone (not just inerested pilots) may be able to access them.
It does not matter what flight rules the unknown (or infringing aircraft) is flying under. What matters is what are the flight rules of the traffic that the controller is working.
If the aircraft is IFR and in CAS it must be receiving a Control service. If the aircraft is recieving a RADAR control service the controller is required to take 5nm or 5,000ft against any unknown traffic that there is evidence to show is in the Controlled airspace concerned. (MATS PT1)
There is no discretion from the CAA, although they accept that an infringement may occur at the worst possible time and that the required separation may not be achieved.
Therefore if you have an IFR aircraft in CAS class "A" through to "D" the controller must avoid the unknown traffic.
P.S as for the clips of infringers it is highly unlikely that they will be realeased to a public forum where anyone (not just inerested pilots) may be able to access them.
'just another atco'
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: LTC Swanwick
I have read all this with interest. The acrimonious attitude demonstrated by the interchanges between Alan and Bose is thankfully not typical of the relationship between GA pilots and ATCOs IMHO. Pilots and controllers that I have the privilege of speaking with about the issue of infringements are generally very close in their perceptions about the causal factors and possible solutions to the problem. 'Electronic' dialogue, while a very powerful medium, is not always best a resolving what appear to be polar opposed attitudes. I suspect if Bose was to plug in with Alan on Thames Radar for a few hours he would quickly understand why your average ATCO (not suggesting you are average, Alan ;-)) has a healthy degree of cynicism about the abilities of your average PPL (which Bose has assured us he is far above in the food chain ;-))
I would like to contribute to the debate with a couple of issues which are close to my heart;
1. I personally, have absolutely no doubt that the ability to navigate by your average PPL has diminished dramatically over the past 18 years or so I have been providing a radar service. More worryingly, this diminishing ability is being perpetuated by declining standards in our instructors. My assessment of this is based on the fact that while providing a LARS service for approximately 12 years I had cause to file a report on one instructor who managed to conduct an entire general handling exercise inside controlled airspace, without a clearance. Conversely, over the past 2 years I have found it necessary to report infringements involving instructors on approximately seven occasions.
2. The provision of a comprehensive LARS service around the LTMA would have a fundamental and dramatically positive effect on the number of infringements of controlled airspace. This service would not only be capable of 'holding the hand' of a pilot who is struggling with the complexities of navigating around exceptionally busy and demanding airspace dimensions but would also provide the capacity to accommodate transit clearances in circumstances when the the 'zone' controller has airspace capacity but not capacity within his/her workload.
Both of these issues IMHO require the positive and decisive intervention of the CAA. Syllabus and standards need to be immediately reviewed and monitored. Enough data must surely be available from infringement investigations to indicate exactly where the present training regime is lacking. A comprehensive system of retraining and re-examination for EVERY infringing pilot would address immediately those people whose poor standards are readily demonstrable while fundamental revision of the biennial flight review and examiner assessment would address the root cause.
ATC service providers may choose to bite the bullet and simply provide a LARS service around the LTMA if the situation continues to deteriorate AND they believe, as I do, that the provision of the service would be a very positive method of addressing the problem. It is however, incredibly difficult to resource given the on-going shortage of radar controllers and very expensive given the fact that traditionally the remuneration generated for LARS is nowhere near what is required to cover the cost of provision. This, however, should be no excuse for the CAA to not direct the service providers to provide this service given the extent of the 'problem', the complexity of the airspace and the diminishing ability of busy controllers operating within controlled airspace to provide anything other than their basic 'contracted' service to IFR traffic.
Even given the relatively large amount of effort devoted to increasing awareness of the infringements issue amongst ATCOs and pilots, the figures continue to increase disproportinately as does the problem to the extent that I really fear some catastrophic event will be the catalyst to generate the decisive action which the CAA should be instigating NOW.
I would like to contribute to the debate with a couple of issues which are close to my heart;
1. I personally, have absolutely no doubt that the ability to navigate by your average PPL has diminished dramatically over the past 18 years or so I have been providing a radar service. More worryingly, this diminishing ability is being perpetuated by declining standards in our instructors. My assessment of this is based on the fact that while providing a LARS service for approximately 12 years I had cause to file a report on one instructor who managed to conduct an entire general handling exercise inside controlled airspace, without a clearance. Conversely, over the past 2 years I have found it necessary to report infringements involving instructors on approximately seven occasions.
2. The provision of a comprehensive LARS service around the LTMA would have a fundamental and dramatically positive effect on the number of infringements of controlled airspace. This service would not only be capable of 'holding the hand' of a pilot who is struggling with the complexities of navigating around exceptionally busy and demanding airspace dimensions but would also provide the capacity to accommodate transit clearances in circumstances when the the 'zone' controller has airspace capacity but not capacity within his/her workload.
Both of these issues IMHO require the positive and decisive intervention of the CAA. Syllabus and standards need to be immediately reviewed and monitored. Enough data must surely be available from infringement investigations to indicate exactly where the present training regime is lacking. A comprehensive system of retraining and re-examination for EVERY infringing pilot would address immediately those people whose poor standards are readily demonstrable while fundamental revision of the biennial flight review and examiner assessment would address the root cause.
ATC service providers may choose to bite the bullet and simply provide a LARS service around the LTMA if the situation continues to deteriorate AND they believe, as I do, that the provision of the service would be a very positive method of addressing the problem. It is however, incredibly difficult to resource given the on-going shortage of radar controllers and very expensive given the fact that traditionally the remuneration generated for LARS is nowhere near what is required to cover the cost of provision. This, however, should be no excuse for the CAA to not direct the service providers to provide this service given the extent of the 'problem', the complexity of the airspace and the diminishing ability of busy controllers operating within controlled airspace to provide anything other than their basic 'contracted' service to IFR traffic.
Even given the relatively large amount of effort devoted to increasing awareness of the infringements issue amongst ATCOs and pilots, the figures continue to increase disproportinately as does the problem to the extent that I really fear some catastrophic event will be the catalyst to generate the decisive action which the CAA should be instigating NOW.
Last edited by TC_LTN; 6th September 2006 at 08:28. Reason: in response to TDM's corrections ;-))
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: England
Im new to aviation, and have read this thread with great interest, like most pilots, I/ we are at the mercy of our instructor's when it comes to being taught nav, I would greatly appreciate exactly what is required, when flying close to a restricted area ? maybe AlanM could give a definative answer please ? I don't wish to become an infringer
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Thanks Rustle - Brain Fade on my part
probably should have said SVFR vs IFR in Class A.
The separation rules on unknown traffic do seem quite large - but I am not an airspace designer. Is it correct that an aircraft radar identified and in receipt of only FIS is 'known' and is it therefore correct that if this aircraft infringes the separation requirement is the only the 'Standard' for VFR or SVFR in class A (although logically I am not sure an infringing aircraft could be SVFR)
probably should have said SVFR vs IFR in Class A.The separation rules on unknown traffic do seem quite large - but I am not an airspace designer. Is it correct that an aircraft radar identified and in receipt of only FIS is 'known' and is it therefore correct that if this aircraft infringes the separation requirement is the only the 'Standard' for VFR or SVFR in class A (although logically I am not sure an infringing aircraft could be SVFR)
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Originally Posted by bookworm
Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?
) "talk" that some ATCOs are providing to clubs, schools and private pilot groups which includes discussion of these and some graphics of the events;If you get the chance to visit LTCC there are some [disidentified] radar replays that NATS can show you in their own premises;
If you subscribe to "Instrument Pilot" there should be some more information in there in the next edition - if the author of said piece pulls his finger out
If you want to hear the "talk" I can put you in touch with a man who can
BTW, the ATCOs doing these talks are doing it in their own time and at their own expense
, so it might take a little while to organise...