200th infringement
'just another atco'
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: LTC Swanwick
Bookworm,
I find it hard to believe that you haven't attended a visit to LTCC or seen an infringements presentation given your enthusiasm for all things aviation?
Rustle has already detailed what constitutes SSEs and I am surprised that given the figures as presented and the description of the 'problem' in the thread that the tone of your response would seem to question the significance and quantity of the 'problem'.
I have seen some very cynical and sceptical pilots, converted by seeing the presentation and/or spending some time on a TC Approach position and talking to our ATCOs.
The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.
I find it hard to believe that you haven't attended a visit to LTCC or seen an infringements presentation given your enthusiasm for all things aviation?
Rustle has already detailed what constitutes SSEs and I am surprised that given the figures as presented and the description of the 'problem' in the thread that the tone of your response would seem to question the significance and quantity of the 'problem'.
I have seen some very cynical and sceptical pilots, converted by seeing the presentation and/or spending some time on a TC Approach position and talking to our ATCOs.
The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
From: UK
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 perpetuate 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.
.
.
Whilst I am sure LARS would assist preventing some of the infringements my own personal experience is that many of the infringer's haven't been speaking to us and we provide a LARS service, so what excuse is offered up when a comprehensive radar service is available ?
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Which just goes back to my earlier point about the quality of the average PPL. It was not me that attacked AlanM it was rather a blanket statement that was made about PPL's being crap and being told to steer away from CAS because we are not wanted. The strange thing is on the whole I can agree with his reasons just not the way he presented it!
The standard of PPL training these days is shocking as a whole. Why? because we allow inexeperianced hours builders to become FI's who know nothing about flying and are only interested in a jet job (and will sit there and tell you all day how long how they are going to fly an airbus). These wet behind the ears instructors have no experiance to pass on, in fact most of them have probably only been near controlled airpspace during there own training yet they are quite happy to try and convince the mere mortals that they know everything.
The correct use of GPS and Nav aids is not taught as the instructors generally don't have access to them theirselves (to broke from getting up to their eyeballs in debt from training) and the spamcan fleet is full of old crap that does not work. (Q PeterH here for support.......
)
TC-LTN, yes I am probably further up the food chain know I took the effort to do a CPL/IR, but that has been through determination to improve my flying and learn about everything in aviation possible with the aim of being a safer pilot not an airline pilot. I did this so I did not become one of the infringers and to ensure that my flying and RT were first class 100% of the time. I get refused very few transits.....
So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?
The standard of PPL training these days is shocking as a whole. Why? because we allow inexeperianced hours builders to become FI's who know nothing about flying and are only interested in a jet job (and will sit there and tell you all day how long how they are going to fly an airbus). These wet behind the ears instructors have no experiance to pass on, in fact most of them have probably only been near controlled airpspace during there own training yet they are quite happy to try and convince the mere mortals that they know everything.
The correct use of GPS and Nav aids is not taught as the instructors generally don't have access to them theirselves (to broke from getting up to their eyeballs in debt from training) and the spamcan fleet is full of old crap that does not work. (Q PeterH here for support.......
)TC-LTN, yes I am probably further up the food chain know I took the effort to do a CPL/IR, but that has been through determination to improve my flying and learn about everything in aviation possible with the aim of being a safer pilot not an airline pilot. I did this so I did not become one of the infringers and to ensure that my flying and RT were first class 100% of the time. I get refused very few transits.....
So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?
'just another atco'
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
From: LTC Swanwick
TC-LTN, yes I am probably further up the food chain know I took the effort to do a CPL/IR, but that has been through determination to improve my flying and learn about everything in aviation possible with the aim of being a safer pilot not an airline pilot. I did this so I did not become one of the infringers and to ensure that my flying and RT were first class 100% of the time. I get refused very few transits.....
So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?
So far I have amassed a few hours without a single infingement (even my one skirmish with your own controller that turned out to be controller error as you recall). Would you really take that effort away from me?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
TC_LTN
Be careful, BOSE-X was not saying that he was perfect - he was saying that he has worked hard not to be one of the pilots that infringe airspace and that he was treating his hobby with the same professional attitude that most commercial pilots would like to think they do...
What he said was that not everyone does
Be careful, BOSE-X was not saying that he was perfect - he was saying that he has worked hard not to be one of the pilots that infringe airspace and that he was treating his hobby with the same professional attitude that most commercial pilots would like to think they do...
What he said was that not everyone does
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
How on earth do you know that? I've busted Class B on two occasions that I know about (filed NASA forms both times), I have no idea how many I don't know about, but I bet it's happened, and probably more than twice.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: UK
If some kind soul would buy me a nice new radar, train and employ the staff and maintain the equipment I would be more than happy to provide southeast England with a LARS. 
Strange...I do not hear the sound of wallets being un-zipped. Maybe I am asking too much.
Strange...I do not hear the sound of wallets being un-zipped. Maybe I am asking too much.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Although an improved radar service would be very nice, in the places where they are widely available I don't use them to avoid CAS, I use them as an extra pair of eyes for traffic avoidance and somebody to talk to if I have a problem. I don't think it's the controllers job to vector me around airspace, that's my job. Actually it's the controllers job to let me through controlled airspace.....
Best way to avoid CAS bust IMO is better airspace design and better charts. Certainly the UK is crying out for the former, and my opinion would be that the charts need work, but that has been contentious on here in the past
Best way to avoid CAS bust IMO is better airspace design and better charts. Certainly the UK is crying out for the former, and my opinion would be that the charts need work, but that has been contentious on here in the past
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
On the whole I find controllers very good. Refusals of transits are rare, and if anything I detect they are more readily forthcoming than they were say two or three years ago.
Inevitably there are those controllers who you feel might do as well to take a social skills course, but that is also true of some pilots.
My personal pet hate are those controllers who respond to a CAS clearance request with “remain clear etc .. .. ..”. Private pilots don’t just fly for pleasure and some have schedules to keep. A decision needs to be made whether to route around or wait for the clearance. A simple “remain clear of CAS, but you can expect a clearance in x minutes” would be so much more helpful.
To answer the original question .. .. .. Of course infringements are a problem, infringements of ANY airspace are a problem. The solution in the long term must be down to training. With correct training, infringements should be extremely rare, and only occur for exceptional reasons. Training needs to impact at two separate points.
Firstly, there is clearly a need to train initial students to a higher standard. I am not entirely convinced any perceived fall in standards is attributable to the number of FIs who are wannabe commercial pilots, because I am not sure the make up of the FI population has changed a great deal over the last five years or so. I suspect there has simply been a general fall in standards and too greater willingness to pass students.
Secondly, there is also clearly a need to tackle the existing population of pilots. The two yearly check provides an opportunity, but in my opinion the opportunity is consistently missed by instructors. When were you last asked to review with the instructor CAS clearances and navigation?
Finally, whilst I broadly agree it is not the role of controllers to “mollycoddle” pilots never the less both should have an interest in reducing CAS infringements. Controllers should therefore provide as much support to GA as possible remembering in particular that GA is often far less well equipped than their commercial brethren. Inevitably work loads are sometimes high. Equally controllers have a role to play in enforcing standards, particularly as regards RT. In my view there is more unacceptable RT that is left uncorrected than there was, by some margin. It was not uncommon to hear controllers insist read backs and clearances were PRECISELY correct, where as there seems to be more occasions now when the read back eventually conveys the correct information but is still less than clear. Personally without the correct read back I would refuse whatever the clearance is that is being requested .. ..
Inevitably there are those controllers who you feel might do as well to take a social skills course, but that is also true of some pilots.
My personal pet hate are those controllers who respond to a CAS clearance request with “remain clear etc .. .. ..”. Private pilots don’t just fly for pleasure and some have schedules to keep. A decision needs to be made whether to route around or wait for the clearance. A simple “remain clear of CAS, but you can expect a clearance in x minutes” would be so much more helpful.
To answer the original question .. .. .. Of course infringements are a problem, infringements of ANY airspace are a problem. The solution in the long term must be down to training. With correct training, infringements should be extremely rare, and only occur for exceptional reasons. Training needs to impact at two separate points.
Firstly, there is clearly a need to train initial students to a higher standard. I am not entirely convinced any perceived fall in standards is attributable to the number of FIs who are wannabe commercial pilots, because I am not sure the make up of the FI population has changed a great deal over the last five years or so. I suspect there has simply been a general fall in standards and too greater willingness to pass students.
Secondly, there is also clearly a need to tackle the existing population of pilots. The two yearly check provides an opportunity, but in my opinion the opportunity is consistently missed by instructors. When were you last asked to review with the instructor CAS clearances and navigation?
Finally, whilst I broadly agree it is not the role of controllers to “mollycoddle” pilots never the less both should have an interest in reducing CAS infringements. Controllers should therefore provide as much support to GA as possible remembering in particular that GA is often far less well equipped than their commercial brethren. Inevitably work loads are sometimes high. Equally controllers have a role to play in enforcing standards, particularly as regards RT. In my view there is more unacceptable RT that is left uncorrected than there was, by some margin. It was not uncommon to hear controllers insist read backs and clearances were PRECISELY correct, where as there seems to be more occasions now when the read back eventually conveys the correct information but is still less than clear. Personally without the correct read back I would refuse whatever the clearance is that is being requested .. ..
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: around
If I thought I had a realistic chance of being allowed into the CAS in my part of the world, I wouldn't plan (or feel I had to plan) to skirt the edges and thus put myself in a situation where a small navigation error would result in paperwork...
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service. So perhaps people would be more inclined to promote an investment in improving the current service which with some investment (far less than that required for your empire building idea) could provide a more appropriate service.
--------------
Someone mentioned provision af a LARS service. Waste of time. I have probably over the years operated within the area of responsibility of every LARS unit in the country. IFR and VFR. The service is at best patchy and generally simply not available when it is most needed.
----------
As for navigation. While I do believe that navigation is not being taught to the required standard, there is more to the infringements than that.
How many pilots are aware and make allowances for the accuracy of the navigation they are performing. Every one checks 5nm or more each side of track for obstacles because they know they could stray such a distance from track between fixes however, those same pilots plan to fly 1/4 mile from an airspace boundary ignoring the posibility of making an infringement.
Thus, if one was to plan carefully, one would plan to route 5nm (or more) clear of airspace. Try that in the airspace under the LTMA!. Thus the airspace forces pilots to reduce the safety margins and consequently these reduced margins can result in errors.
-------------
The laughable situation is that a pilot can blast off from Biggin VFR request a service from Thames, be refused and then QSY to London Info, fly at exactly 1500ft on the London QNH along the base of the London City CTA with a mode C reading 1700ft, causing (through no fault of their own) severe delays at the City because of controllers taking 5nm and 5000ft separation...........while not in any way being at fault in any way.
Remember the Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area? Why not have a similar requirement in the airspace below the LTMA and some ATSAs at TC providing a FIS as FISO(A)'s. They could coordinate transit requests, specials joiners etc etc. They could also use radar to confirm accuracy of altitude indications on mode S transponding aircraft while making mode S being mandatory for operation in and below the TMA.
Scottish ACC while not having such a traffic loading has a dedicated FIS providing a service in the airspace below the TMA's area of responsibility. Why not follow the idea where there is actually clearly more of a need?
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
People like to slag off training, some people on here at every opportunity (and you are not one FA), and I reckon it's just a hidden reason for the slagger to tell the world how much better they are than the rest of 'em. Funny that the people who slag instructors off don't have an instructor rating (though we know what other ratings they have, as they tell us - repeatedly).
I've sent students off on cross countries next to very busy airspace and I have no problem with that, and they don't have GPS. Why am I fine with that?
1) Because the 'stay out' airspace is small and so the edges short.
2) The edges are easily known, that's because whenever possible they use visual references on the ground to deliniate the airspace. It was designed with VFR pilots in mind.
3) These visual references are shown on the chart, and lots of other stuff which isn't important is not.
4) They are trained to look out of the window, and not at a GPS in the panel.
These are student pilots for god's sake, no experience whatsover. Don't tell me you need a CPL and IR to avoid busting airspace, that's rubbish. Make the airspace work for everybody and you'll get a reduction in infringements.
I've sent students off on cross countries next to very busy airspace and I have no problem with that, and they don't have GPS. Why am I fine with that?
1) Because the 'stay out' airspace is small and so the edges short.
2) The edges are easily known, that's because whenever possible they use visual references on the ground to deliniate the airspace. It was designed with VFR pilots in mind.
3) These visual references are shown on the chart, and lots of other stuff which isn't important is not.
4) They are trained to look out of the window, and not at a GPS in the panel.
These are student pilots for god's sake, no experience whatsover. Don't tell me you need a CPL and IR to avoid busting airspace, that's rubbish. Make the airspace work for everybody and you'll get a reduction in infringements.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: UK
Why would anyone in their right mind pay for radar at Biggin when a service from TC would be a far more cost effective option?
Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service.
Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service.
How many TC sectors participate in the LARS and how many end providing services to aircraft outside CAS only when workload allows.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
We will be speaking with the new webmaster of the Fly on Track site though to discuss what we might be able to make available on there.
Originally Posted by bookworm
So all we really know about the SSEs is that the infringing aircraft came within 5 nm and 5000 ft of an IFR flight?
Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?
Where can we find out more information about the circumstances of the SSEs?
Originally Posted by DFC
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.
WF.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
SATCO Biggin.... That is the point mate. There is no time on the RT for most Approach Controllers to get the stuff through CAS, let alone the stuff planning on going around.
Just look at the year on year increases in traffic say the last 5 years. How many "New" approach sectors or seats are there for the LTMA airfields????
Bose - it is not me saying that you are not wanted because you are not loved (in a GA Sense!) but you are sadly not wanted because we are busy dealing with the IFRs and zone transits!! I have lost count of the number of times traffic going from Elstree to Southend calls Thames when in the Stapleford overhead! It happens daily. (or is routeing DET-BIG-OCK and they get upset when I tell them to call Biggin for ATZ transit)
Have a look at the coverage of Southend LARS..... doesn't it nearly meet with Farnborough's coverage???
Farnborough have a book listing all the aircraft that they either dig or prevent from entering the Zones of Gatwick, Heathrow and Solent, not to mention the LTMA.
So, to sum: WE DON'T HATE GA.... WE DON'T REFUSE GA WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE... We just don't have the TIME to deal with everyone outside CAS. DON'T BLAME US!
Just look at the year on year increases in traffic say the last 5 years. How many "New" approach sectors or seats are there for the LTMA airfields????
Bose - it is not me saying that you are not wanted because you are not loved (in a GA Sense!) but you are sadly not wanted because we are busy dealing with the IFRs and zone transits!! I have lost count of the number of times traffic going from Elstree to Southend calls Thames when in the Stapleford overhead! It happens daily. (or is routeing DET-BIG-OCK and they get upset when I tell them to call Biggin for ATZ transit)
Have a look at the coverage of Southend LARS..... doesn't it nearly meet with Farnborough's coverage???
Farnborough have a book listing all the aircraft that they either dig or prevent from entering the Zones of Gatwick, Heathrow and Solent, not to mention the LTMA.
So, to sum: WE DON'T HATE GA.... WE DON'T REFUSE GA WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE... We just don't have the TIME to deal with everyone outside CAS. DON'T BLAME US!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Boys and Gurlz
It doesnt matter how many movies of CAS busts you put up on some website. I've been to two ATC units recently and it's very interesting stuff, especially the radar track videos, but it won't make anybody (including myself) fly any differently.
The only way is forward, and the only way forward is to improve navigation. And the only way to do that, in the context of a "45 hour PPL" (which the flight training industry will fight till death - overtly and covertly - to keep unchanged) is a complete revamp.
Ditch the stupid and ridiculous 19th century slide rule (which Babbage would have immediately understood) and the many hours spent (wasted) learning how to use that piece of crap (without, in nearly all cases, actually ever acquiring an understanding of how it works) and instead spend those hours using electronic aids, and a GPS.
This whole business is so old fashioned it's going to get swallowed up in its own Olde English backside if it carries on for much longer.
Today I flew from Corfu LGKR to Padova LIPU. Guess how many planes I saw or heard en route (distance about 600nm). Answer: 0 and about 3. That is what is in store for UK GA unless something is done.
It's even worse down in Greece.
It doesnt matter how many movies of CAS busts you put up on some website. I've been to two ATC units recently and it's very interesting stuff, especially the radar track videos, but it won't make anybody (including myself) fly any differently.
The only way is forward, and the only way forward is to improve navigation. And the only way to do that, in the context of a "45 hour PPL" (which the flight training industry will fight till death - overtly and covertly - to keep unchanged) is a complete revamp.
Ditch the stupid and ridiculous 19th century slide rule (which Babbage would have immediately understood) and the many hours spent (wasted) learning how to use that piece of crap (without, in nearly all cases, actually ever acquiring an understanding of how it works) and instead spend those hours using electronic aids, and a GPS.
This whole business is so old fashioned it's going to get swallowed up in its own Olde English backside if it carries on for much longer.
Today I flew from Corfu LGKR to Padova LIPU. Guess how many planes I saw or heard en route (distance about 600nm). Answer: 0 and about 3. That is what is in store for UK GA unless something is done.
It's even worse down in Greece.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Rustle has already detailed what constitutes SSEs and I am surprised that given the figures as presented and the description of the 'problem' in the thread that the tone of your response would seem to question the significance and quantity of the 'problem'.
The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.
The problem is very real, getting worse and needs urgently addressing by whatever means possible.
In any aspect of risk management, it's important to quantify real risk. If we don't do that, we end up in a world dominated by perceived risk where the management decisions are taken on the basis of tabloid "Phew-that-was-close" headlines.
"SSE" and "loss of separation" is all very well as labels. But aircraft don't occupy a volume of 100 cubic miles, thus "loss of separation" and "collision" are very different things.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
bookie - your thoughts are not a million miles from almost ALL ATCOs....
But our management and the regulator disagrees..... and it is the ATCO who is immediately taken out of the seat whilst the event is investigated on radar replays and RT recordings.
But our management and the regulator disagrees..... and it is the ATCO who is immediately taken out of the seat whilst the event is investigated on radar replays and RT recordings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In any aspect of risk management, it's important to quantify real risk. If we don't do that, we end up in a world dominated by perceived risk where the management decisions are taken on the basis of tabloid "Phew-that-was-close" headlines.
"SSE" and "loss of separation" is all very well as labels. But aircraft don't occupy a volume of 100 cubic miles, thus "loss of separation" and "collision" are very different things.
"SSE" and "loss of separation" is all very well as labels. But aircraft don't occupy a volume of 100 cubic miles, thus "loss of separation" and "collision" are very different things.
The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum
WF.