200th infringement
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
P.S. Please let me know when - I want to be there!
Bookworm,
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!
Your little conspiracy world doesn't need any help from me: You're more than capable of dreaming it up by yourself...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had read and quoted ALL what Johnm said :
In the case of my own infringment I was talking to the unit in question (Luton are unfailingly helpful) and my error was to forget that steam driven navigation is significantly less accurate than GPS. Otherwise I'd have routed five degrees North and never entered the zone. As it was I maintained my original track with steam aids and ended up half a mile in the zone. Whereupon the kind controller tactfully mentioned the fact to me and gave me a vector for my destination.
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Positive marks to JOhnm for admitting a mistake and publicising it for others to learn from. -ve marks to people who have a go at him.
This thread has similar undertones to another on this site and that is pilots do like to blame ATC. Isn't the goal one where you don't need to talk to a controller in order to fly from A-B? I don't want to talk to a damned controller most of the time, it gets in the way of just bimbling along and he might require me to do things that make me think.
Take a look at the Los Angeles Terminal Area chart. Now that is what I call busy airspace, nothing like that in Europe, I suggest. On the back is a nice diagram of the area with lots of lovely visual reference points, and thick blue lines with arrows and altitudes on them. These are visual routes which you follow in order to get through SOCAL airspace without having to talk to a controller.
The airspace is properly designed for both IFR and VFR traffic, and the chart makes it easier to see the edges.
SOrt the airspace out so we don't need to depend on the goodwill of a controller to get from A-B. That will reduce airproxes and infringements. Not bring it down to zero, but the only way to do that is to ban commercial traffic, and that will never happen
This thread has similar undertones to another on this site and that is pilots do like to blame ATC. Isn't the goal one where you don't need to talk to a controller in order to fly from A-B? I don't want to talk to a damned controller most of the time, it gets in the way of just bimbling along and he might require me to do things that make me think.
Take a look at the Los Angeles Terminal Area chart. Now that is what I call busy airspace, nothing like that in Europe, I suggest. On the back is a nice diagram of the area with lots of lovely visual reference points, and thick blue lines with arrows and altitudes on them. These are visual routes which you follow in order to get through SOCAL airspace without having to talk to a controller.
The airspace is properly designed for both IFR and VFR traffic, and the chart makes it easier to see the edges.
SOrt the airspace out so we don't need to depend on the goodwill of a controller to get from A-B. That will reduce airproxes and infringements. Not bring it down to zero, but the only way to do that is to ban commercial traffic, and that will never happen
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you'd be suprised.. i'm very very well informed!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reading of JohnM's post is that he did have an acceptable backup method of navigation, and was able to quickly transition to it when this GPS failed.
It also seems that he accuratly flew his backup navigation method. Unfortunatley the instruments themselves didn't have the accuracy one would expect from a GPS.
Hardly an argument for not using GPS.
Well done JohnM for having a backup method and being able to quickly transition to it. It's just unfortunate that that method isn't as reliable and accurate as GPS.
SS, that has to be one of the funniest comments I've read here in a long time 
Thank you for injecting a little light humour into this thread
dp
It also seems that he accuratly flew his backup navigation method. Unfortunatley the instruments themselves didn't have the accuracy one would expect from a GPS.
Hardly an argument for not using GPS.
Well done JohnM for having a backup method and being able to quickly transition to it. It's just unfortunate that that method isn't as reliable and accurate as GPS.
OK, as a pilot can I reserve the right when I get a controller who is a little hesitant or speaks with a plummy accent to ask for another more confident and experienced controller to handle my request?
Thank you for injecting a little light humour into this thread dp
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done for removing the stats. - you shouldnt have been publishing confidential information here anyway and it would seem no one was very interested .
I wonder who will pop up next?
.I wonder who will pop up next?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had read and digested the above, you will have seen that he WAS using BACKUP traditional nav techniques, which turned out (funnily enough!!) not to be as accurate as his PRIMARY nav source (the GPS) which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the best form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!
He infringed because he was relying on GPS.
WAS using BACKUP traditional nav techniques,
Which kind of backs up those that say GPS is the worst form of navigation to use in order to avoid airspace busts!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, No, No.....He infringed because traditional nav (which he was using at the time of the bust) is not as accurate as the GPS he had planned on using, and was originally using, which had failed on him. read DPs post 2 above yours, maybe he is better at articulating it than I am?
I also say welldone Johnm for having, and being able to transition to, backup nav. methods, and for being in contact with the relavent unit at the time too - good job they didnt just say "remain clear of controlled airspace - goodbye!" isnt it?
Regards, SD..
PS..Johnm, hope we havent scared you off!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand exactly the reasons as to why the infringement occured.
Unlike yourself, I do not accept them as an excuse for the infringement.
Last edited by SensibleATCO; 7th Sep 2006 at 15:21.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!
All SSEs do is establish the safety significance of an incident to NATS for NATS own safety auditing purposes.
That's all, no secret codes or conspiracies and the information used is the same as will have been submitted to the CAA in the MOR.
The end of the SSE debate, as far as I'm concerned anyway.
WF.
Last edited by Warped Factor; 7th Sep 2006 at 16:11.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if there aren't enough controllers to effectively administer allocated CAS on behalf of ALL airspace users, then why not reduce the amount of CAS... Remind me when was the last time any LHR traffic flew over Elstree anywhere close to 2500' ??
(duck and cover)
(duck and cover)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Then don't forget Northolt arrivals/departures and some Luton routes as well...
WF.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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"
Sorry if my comments impacted on a sensitive issue.
This was what was said from which I assumed that NATS keep more detailed information on controllers perception of the risk conseqeunces of an infringement. In short I was reacting to the post, the suggestion (which may well have been tongue in cheek) that it was not for public consumption and the implication that the scale of risk is not associated with the information passed on to the CAA. Persoanlly I would have thought that information would have been useful to enable a wider audience to assess the extent of the problem. Presumably some scoring system is used and presumably this is indeed some form of code in a loose sense.
So if this information isnt confidential or if I have misunderstood then doubtless those who can will clarrify the matter in a measured way without having to resort to the usual personal abuse.
If it is confidential then presumably there would be no objection to an outline of how the system works, how infringements are actually scored (for internal auditing purposes) and whether this information would give an additional insight into the extent of the problem over and beyond the reports passed to the CAA and why if it is the case NATS feel this information should not be made available.
Sorry if my comments impacted on a sensitive issue.
This was what was said from which I assumed that NATS keep more detailed information on controllers perception of the risk conseqeunces of an infringement. In short I was reacting to the post, the suggestion (which may well have been tongue in cheek) that it was not for public consumption and the implication that the scale of risk is not associated with the information passed on to the CAA. Persoanlly I would have thought that information would have been useful to enable a wider audience to assess the extent of the problem. Presumably some scoring system is used and presumably this is indeed some form of code in a loose sense.
So if this information isnt confidential or if I have misunderstood then doubtless those who can will clarrify the matter in a measured way without having to resort to the usual personal abuse.
If it is confidential then presumably there would be no objection to an outline of how the system works, how infringements are actually scored (for internal auditing purposes) and whether this information would give an additional insight into the extent of the problem over and beyond the reports passed to the CAA and why if it is the case NATS feel this information should not be made available.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This really is my last post on SSEs.
Try googling, you might find out a little more info.
I've said as much as I'm going to say on SSEs because it is not my place to go into any greater detail on an anonymous internet forum. Hopefully you can understand that!
If you really are interested in the SSE scheme and how it works contact the right people officially and I would hope you'd get a positive response which you could then make available yourself to a wider audience. Some research on the NATS www site should point you in the right direction.
WF.
Try googling, you might find out a little more info.
I've said as much as I'm going to say on SSEs because it is not my place to go into any greater detail on an anonymous internet forum. Hopefully you can understand that!
If you really are interested in the SSE scheme and how it works contact the right people officially and I would hope you'd get a positive response which you could then make available yourself to a wider audience. Some research on the NATS www site should point you in the right direction.
WF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does seem to be a polarisation here between pilots and controllers. On another thread Bright-Ling who list his occupation as a controller said "Great - it works.
How many whingeing PPLs left.....??????"
Is this really how the people who keep controllers in work are viewed?
How many whingeing PPLs left.....??????"
Is this really how the people who keep controllers in work are viewed?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WorkingHard
There does seem to be a polarisation here between pilots and controllers. On another thread Bright-Ling who list his occupation as a controller said "Great - it works.
How many whingeing PPLs left.....??????"
Is this really how the people who keep controllers in work are viewed?
How many whingeing PPLs left.....??????"
Is this really how the people who keep controllers in work are viewed?
Most of the informed (infringement) input in this thread has come from ATCOs and I'm sure if they didn't give a **** about GA/pilots they wouldn't bother.
All of the infringement discussions at clubs/schools etc (as I detailed previously) are undertaken by ATCOs in their own time. Would they do that if they didn't give a **** about GA/pilots?
There are occasional dummy-spits in here between controller and pilot, but no more or less than between any two groups of people who see things from different perspectives
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle I was just reflecting what appeared to be the gist of what this thread is now - polarisation. I did not say I agree with it. In fact as I have said often on some of the threads I have found worthwhile reading I have the utmost respect (and generally utmost help) from the ATCO fraternity. It does not apply to all any more than any adjective can apply to all GA pilots. May I just also say that a lot of GA is for business use and it is not always desirable to fly IFR or via an airway so please dont "lump" all GA in the weekend PPL flyer category. The weekend PPL flyer may not be as practised as some but they have same rights to respect and service as the rest and may, just may, need a litte more help and understanding when things go slightly awry.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF
Thanks for your response.
Actually, and clearly this may surprise you, I am interested.
I have no issues what so ever with the way controllers operate CAS. I may disagree with certain aspects of policy but that is a different matter. In fact as I have said before I can barely recall the last zone transit refused and in class A the service is first class.
I also appreciate you may not be permitted to comment professionally.
Never the less it is interesting that no one else on this forum (who does not work for NATS) is either able or prepared to comment on the recording system you have alluded to. Surprise you as it might, (and I will do the research) and since this forum is a discussion about CAS infringements, I suspect others would be interested in how NATS categorise infringements and what this data reveals. Moreover I would have thought NATS would be interested in giving you and others permission to explain how the system works.
I don’t agree that most of the informed input on this thread has come from ATCOs. I believe both pilots (who are not ATCOs) and those that are, have made equally good contributions. It is equally important ATCOs appreciate the problems pilots have, and what contributes to infringements. Frankly comments such as “I cant be bothered or I haven’t got time to explain when you might get a transit” are unhelpful because it is dismissive of the needs of GA and dismissive (in my opinion) of the factors that lead to pilots tracking around the edge of CAS (which is not desirable for either party).
How many pilots on here actively seek to avoid CAS transits because they cant be bothered with the hassle?
The views of some ATCOs here (not necessarily on this thread) are far from representative of the many I have met elsewhere. As Rustle quite rightly says, there are a great many that give of their time freely to clubs around the country.
I find it interesting the slatting the chap on here has got because he infringed CAS in IMC when his GPS failed and the assumptions made about what equipment he might or might not have been relying on. Infringement of CAS is inexcusable, but it happens because to make mistakes is human. I can list a fair few mistakes made by ATCOs, one of which nearly cost me my life and resulted in a very full apology. It happens. What is important is why, and what lessons can be learned.
Thanks for your response.
Actually, and clearly this may surprise you, I am interested.
I have no issues what so ever with the way controllers operate CAS. I may disagree with certain aspects of policy but that is a different matter. In fact as I have said before I can barely recall the last zone transit refused and in class A the service is first class.
I also appreciate you may not be permitted to comment professionally.
Never the less it is interesting that no one else on this forum (who does not work for NATS) is either able or prepared to comment on the recording system you have alluded to. Surprise you as it might, (and I will do the research) and since this forum is a discussion about CAS infringements, I suspect others would be interested in how NATS categorise infringements and what this data reveals. Moreover I would have thought NATS would be interested in giving you and others permission to explain how the system works.
I don’t agree that most of the informed input on this thread has come from ATCOs. I believe both pilots (who are not ATCOs) and those that are, have made equally good contributions. It is equally important ATCOs appreciate the problems pilots have, and what contributes to infringements. Frankly comments such as “I cant be bothered or I haven’t got time to explain when you might get a transit” are unhelpful because it is dismissive of the needs of GA and dismissive (in my opinion) of the factors that lead to pilots tracking around the edge of CAS (which is not desirable for either party).
How many pilots on here actively seek to avoid CAS transits because they cant be bothered with the hassle?
The views of some ATCOs here (not necessarily on this thread) are far from representative of the many I have met elsewhere. As Rustle quite rightly says, there are a great many that give of their time freely to clubs around the country.
I find it interesting the slatting the chap on here has got because he infringed CAS in IMC when his GPS failed and the assumptions made about what equipment he might or might not have been relying on. Infringement of CAS is inexcusable, but it happens because to make mistakes is human. I can list a fair few mistakes made by ATCOs, one of which nearly cost me my life and resulted in a very full apology. It happens. What is important is why, and what lessons can be learned.