200th infringement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
200th infringement
Sunday saw a pretty staggering anniversary: the 200th infringement of CAS around the London TMA airfileds since the 1st of April this year.
Thats 200 in FIVE months!
So my questions are - have you infringed, if you did were you traced and what happened?
Also what would you do to stop them and do you think they are really a problem?
Thats 200 in FIVE months!
So my questions are - have you infringed, if you did were you traced and what happened?
Also what would you do to stop them and do you think they are really a problem?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know how many requests for service in the same area have been refused in the same period? And how many pilots didn't call because they assumed that here would be no service available?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next question to that would be how many of the infringing aircraft had askedf or a clearance. Only those who infringed would be able to answer that - Come on guys there must have been someone reading this site that has infringed.
I've had several flights in which I entered controlled airspace without a clearance, often on a vector or in accordance with an instruction from a TC controller. Do they count as infringements?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I infringed. Travelling approx. north south, in receipt of a RIS when asked to change squawk for next unit and wished a safe journey with frequency and "they have your details". Lo and behold unit RT was temporarily very busy so a short delay in getting a word in edgeways and then told I had entered CAS without permission. True no doubt but what would you have done? What was the correct procedure? Orbit in the CAS from which I had been cleared?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workinghard. thank you for replying to some of the questions. Your post raises more questions.
If you were on a RIS you could not have been in controlled airspace to begin with.
The correct procedure is to remain outside of CAS because you don't have a clearance to enter! I know that your details were passed to the controller but that does not mean that the controller had identified you and separated other aircraft from you.
potkettleblack - the number of flights that infringe is small compared with the total number but they account for a large number of the losses of separation and some of the most serious!
If you were on a RIS you could not have been in controlled airspace to begin with.
The correct procedure is to remain outside of CAS because you don't have a clearance to enter! I know that your details were passed to the controller but that does not mean that the controller had identified you and separated other aircraft from you.
potkettleblack - the number of flights that infringe is small compared with the total number but they account for a large number of the losses of separation and some of the most serious!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the 200th infringer get his/her picture on the front of the company rag, with a handshake from MikeT?!?! 
Interesting that there is a perceived correlation that because GA gets a bung deal in the SE, it explains why some pilots are unable to navigate without someone holding their hand.
Those that aren't able to fly around on their own in good vis need grounding.
Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple.
Oh, and how can being handed over imply clearance into the zone? Net gain from that one is that I will stop doing handovers, meaning you have to give all your details, have some time without a radar service and the unit may be too busy to take yr details so you route around. Well done mate.
All this molly-coddleing has got to stop!
Interesting that there is a perceived correlation that because GA gets a bung deal in the SE, it explains why some pilots are unable to navigate without someone holding their hand.
Those that aren't able to fly around on their own in good vis need grounding.
Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple.
Oh, and how can being handed over imply clearance into the zone? Net gain from that one is that I will stop doing handovers, meaning you have to give all your details, have some time without a radar service and the unit may be too busy to take yr details so you route around. Well done mate.
All this molly-coddleing has got to stop!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How absolutely, horrifically arrogant. Here are two recent circumstances, both from my own experience:
1) Flying very close (within 1/4nm) to the edge of a certain CTR while remaining OCAS, by reference to the AIP and a 1:50k OS map -- should I not bother calling to say "Oh, hi ... (c/s) remaining clear of CAS to the south" or similar to set the controller's mind at rest...?
(entering CAS not required; didn't ask to enter the zone -- theoretically to make the controller's life easier...)
2) Taking a formation through a narrow corridor of airspace under the London TMA, wanted to get the London QNH amongst other things, operating into a small airfield under said unit's Class D...
Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form...
1) Flying very close (within 1/4nm) to the edge of a certain CTR while remaining OCAS, by reference to the AIP and a 1:50k OS map -- should I not bother calling to say "Oh, hi ... (c/s) remaining clear of CAS to the south" or similar to set the controller's mind at rest...?
(entering CAS not required; didn't ask to enter the zone -- theoretically to make the controller's life easier...)
2) Taking a formation through a narrow corridor of airspace under the London TMA, wanted to get the London QNH amongst other things, operating into a small airfield under said unit's Class D...
Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form...
the number of flights that infringe is small compared with the total number but they account for a large number of the losses of separation and some of the most serious!
Seriously, as someone who flies in both the airways and outside controlled airspace, I think you underestimate just how much higher the workload is in the SE of England for those outside controlled airspace than for some of your regular customers.
Oh, and how can being handed over imply clearance into the zone?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlanM
Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple
Don't call us unless you want to enter CAS. Simple
Maybe next time I'll keep quiet and you can worry about that 7000 squawk that's skirting close to the base/sides of your CAS while your pen hovers unerringly over the infringement form...
From my recent visit to the UK over the summer I had cause to ask for Class D trasits on 8 occasions, I got 3 of them, and only on 2 of the refusals did it appear busy on frequency. "remain clear of controlled airspace" - yep I can do that, moving map GPS is very cool!! And funnily enough I saw a couple of other guys doing the same as me (skirting the zone) every time.
Interestingly I have been in France for 5 years now and have never been refused access to Class D yet.....
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple.
When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??
We probably get 80-90% of VFR traffic through the zone.... only blighted when the weather is bad or there are higher priority tasks precluding the transit.
Oh and if you are going to skirt the zone by 1/8th a mile as so many do, the IFR traffic may get TCAS RA on you irrespective of whether your Mode C of 2.4 is verified or not.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday saw a pretty staggering anniversary: the 200th infringement of CAS around the London TMA airfileds since the 1st of April this year.
Thats 200 in FIVE months!
Thats 200 in FIVE months!
Recidivist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope I'm not diverting the thread here.
I often hear Southend referring to unidentified aircraft, sometimes only a couple of miles away. I mean the "slow moving" ones, not the "probably airways traffic", so wonder whether these might usually be microlights?
If so, do microlights not have an obligation to (a) carry a radio and (b) use it under the same rules as other light aircraft?
I often hear Southend referring to unidentified aircraft, sometimes only a couple of miles away. I mean the "slow moving" ones, not the "probably airways traffic", so wonder whether these might usually be microlights?
If so, do microlights not have an obligation to (a) carry a radio and (b) use it under the same rules as other light aircraft?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK, right of centre
Age: 52
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple."
Nice.
Maybe a better attitude would be to talk to the guys on the edge of the zone, or passing nearby so that if they look like they are about to enter the zone a well timed "Oi!" would prevent the infringement. Surely a 20 second conversation for them to tell you that they are nearby, no service required, is quicker than moving lots of heavy metal about to keep separation when someone infringes? This is how you could reduce some infringements, the one of a pilot in a high workload environment. Agreed, pilots should plan better, but human error happens.
As for those who cannot navigate in good viz should be grounded, well, other factors may be at play in the cockpit you don't know about.
Nice.
Maybe a better attitude would be to talk to the guys on the edge of the zone, or passing nearby so that if they look like they are about to enter the zone a well timed "Oi!" would prevent the infringement. Surely a 20 second conversation for them to tell you that they are nearby, no service required, is quicker than moving lots of heavy metal about to keep separation when someone infringes? This is how you could reduce some infringements, the one of a pilot in a high workload environment. Agreed, pilots should plan better, but human error happens.
As for those who cannot navigate in good viz should be grounded, well, other factors may be at play in the cockpit you don't know about.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AlanM,
"All this molly-coddleing has got to stop!"
Totally agree. It is time that the assumption that controllers or the system, have no part in an airspace infringement by GA flights has to stop.
Especially when dealing with units who use radar, there are a number of standards which are often ignored and that is seldom picked up in a resultant investigation.
Example:
Aircraft are entitled to ask for and be given navigational assistance from radar units if that unit requires them to divert from their planned track.
Pilots must not be shy about asking for navigational assistance from any radar equipped ATC units if required. If that means a request for radar vectors then so be it.
Of course, a zone crossing will only be refused when the controller is working to maximum capacity already (otherwise a crossing clearance would be issued). This means that such a request for vectors to remain clear will either be;
a) Given - with a possible reduction in capacity within said airspace - ie possible delays; or
b) Refused - with the posibility that airspace could be infringed causing safety issues and severe delays or worse.
Knowing the UK system, the most likely response from many units is b) (usually siting commercial reasons). However, having your request for assistance refused and recorded on tape should the unfortunate infringement happen will clearly (for want of a better term), spread the blame more appropriately.
Yes VFR flights should do better when navigating. However, if pilots are not taught how to do it during basic training, they are unlikely to learn later.
However, what the system ignores is that a flight calling up for zone transit south to north over LCY could be VFR, could be IFR or coluld be VFR who changes to IFR at some stage or could be IFR expecting to be VFR for the transit or could be.........VFR but actually IFR or..........God knows what.
Unfortunately, not only do pilots not understand the system but controllers do not either and the system makes it impossible for some licensed pilots to operate within the rules laid down or licenses pilots knowing that they can not act as licensed and are unaware of the rules. An example being the minimum overflight level for the London TMA. If I remember correctly it is FL90. Thus IFR flights should not plan to overfly that airspace enroute at less than FL90. VFR flights should plan to remain outside. However, how can an IMC rated commercial pilot ever get to FL90 for a transit.........they can't. Thus they are operating in cramped airspace with navigation aids that do not provide sufficient accuracy to ensure the flight remains outside controlled airspace at all times and with ATC units that expect them to DR round some complicated piece of airspace in IMC.
In summary, other countries do not have the same level of infringements. One can cross the French FIR at SITET and climb to FL115 VFR and remain there all the way to the south of France with a radar service, handovers, traffic information etc. Now tell me that the airspace 5nm, 10nm or even 15nm north of SITET is more busy that the airspace south of SITET!n Or tell me that the weather is better 5nm south of SITET compared to 5nm north of SITET.
Different attitude, different service level is all I perceive.
In summary, it is a system wide failure. ONTRACK did some good work and is still largely ignored.
Regards,
DFC
"All this molly-coddleing has got to stop!"
Totally agree. It is time that the assumption that controllers or the system, have no part in an airspace infringement by GA flights has to stop.
Especially when dealing with units who use radar, there are a number of standards which are often ignored and that is seldom picked up in a resultant investigation.
Example:
Aircraft are entitled to ask for and be given navigational assistance from radar units if that unit requires them to divert from their planned track.
Pilots must not be shy about asking for navigational assistance from any radar equipped ATC units if required. If that means a request for radar vectors then so be it.
Of course, a zone crossing will only be refused when the controller is working to maximum capacity already (otherwise a crossing clearance would be issued). This means that such a request for vectors to remain clear will either be;
a) Given - with a possible reduction in capacity within said airspace - ie possible delays; or
b) Refused - with the posibility that airspace could be infringed causing safety issues and severe delays or worse.
Knowing the UK system, the most likely response from many units is b) (usually siting commercial reasons). However, having your request for assistance refused and recorded on tape should the unfortunate infringement happen will clearly (for want of a better term), spread the blame more appropriately.
Yes VFR flights should do better when navigating. However, if pilots are not taught how to do it during basic training, they are unlikely to learn later.
However, what the system ignores is that a flight calling up for zone transit south to north over LCY could be VFR, could be IFR or coluld be VFR who changes to IFR at some stage or could be IFR expecting to be VFR for the transit or could be.........VFR but actually IFR or..........God knows what.
Unfortunately, not only do pilots not understand the system but controllers do not either and the system makes it impossible for some licensed pilots to operate within the rules laid down or licenses pilots knowing that they can not act as licensed and are unaware of the rules. An example being the minimum overflight level for the London TMA. If I remember correctly it is FL90. Thus IFR flights should not plan to overfly that airspace enroute at less than FL90. VFR flights should plan to remain outside. However, how can an IMC rated commercial pilot ever get to FL90 for a transit.........they can't. Thus they are operating in cramped airspace with navigation aids that do not provide sufficient accuracy to ensure the flight remains outside controlled airspace at all times and with ATC units that expect them to DR round some complicated piece of airspace in IMC.
In summary, other countries do not have the same level of infringements. One can cross the French FIR at SITET and climb to FL115 VFR and remain there all the way to the south of France with a radar service, handovers, traffic information etc. Now tell me that the airspace 5nm, 10nm or even 15nm north of SITET is more busy that the airspace south of SITET!n Or tell me that the weather is better 5nm south of SITET compared to 5nm north of SITET.
Different attitude, different service level is all I perceive.
In summary, it is a system wide failure. ONTRACK did some good work and is still largely ignored.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kapt Kremen at al. Sorry, but you have missed the point.
We do not have time to sit there and fine tune your plan to fly within 1/4 mile of the zone boundary. THAT is the point.
We help when we can, but when it comes to the point where IFR jets are going through the localiser, or unable to climb because some plonker who wants to give their life story and are coming nowhere near the zone, then it is UNACCEPTABLE to call.
As I said, on our sectors everyone will try and get traffic through. But the fact that you want to fly close to the edge is your own lookout.
Those who aim to fly along the northern edge of the zone on their moving maps, a gnats whisker away from CAS and forget there is a strong northerly wind get no sympathy from us.
Oh, and we don't do lengthy paperwork anymore, just a quick logon to the computer and events are now filed straight into the system.
I for one do not think that the system is perfect, and am a strong backer of a London LARS setup - but the local approach units are largely too busy to hold your hand.
Sorry.
We do not have time to sit there and fine tune your plan to fly within 1/4 mile of the zone boundary. THAT is the point.
We help when we can, but when it comes to the point where IFR jets are going through the localiser, or unable to climb because some plonker who wants to give their life story and are coming nowhere near the zone, then it is UNACCEPTABLE to call.
As I said, on our sectors everyone will try and get traffic through. But the fact that you want to fly close to the edge is your own lookout.
Those who aim to fly along the northern edge of the zone on their moving maps, a gnats whisker away from CAS and forget there is a strong northerly wind get no sympathy from us.
Oh, and we don't do lengthy paperwork anymore, just a quick logon to the computer and events are now filed straight into the system.
I for one do not think that the system is perfect, and am a strong backer of a London LARS setup - but the local approach units are largely too busy to hold your hand.
Sorry.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus Christ Alan, you bloody arrogant ass. It is little wonder there is so much hostility between controllers and GA.
Your little tirade has just set back the relationship a very long way. I used to think your posts were even and level. The comments below just make you out to be a GA hating git. I suggest if you hate GA that much you should head back to the ATC forums and pour out your anti GA bile over there.
Your little tirade has just set back the relationship a very long way. I used to think your posts were even and level. The comments below just make you out to be a GA hating git. I suggest if you hate GA that much you should head back to the ATC forums and pour out your anti GA bile over there.
Given that is what 90% of the traffic around our zone and below our TMA do.
And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple.
When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??
We probably get 80-90% of VFR traffic through the zone.... only blighted when the weather is bad or there are higher priority tasks precluding the transit.
Oh and if you are going to skirt the zone by 1/8th a mile as so many do, the IFR traffic may get TCAS RA on you irrespective of whether your Mode C of 2.4 is verified or not.
And no, it doesn't worry me. The moment you come in though you get filed on. Simple.
When it is busy, our IFR traffic is quite simply at risk from Joe Bloggs Muppet in his light aircraft telling me he is going from A to B via C nowhere near me. Inevitably this happens when two light aircraft wanting to actually enter the zone to transit. The life story from Joe Bloggs means that the first two are unable to get cleared in (there is only so much RT time). So who loses out, the despondent 1 and 2 who end up saying "going around now"??
We probably get 80-90% of VFR traffic through the zone.... only blighted when the weather is bad or there are higher priority tasks precluding the transit.
Oh and if you are going to skirt the zone by 1/8th a mile as so many do, the IFR traffic may get TCAS RA on you irrespective of whether your Mode C of 2.4 is verified or not.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourite was the ex SATCO at Yeovil.. hated GA doing NDB approaches and referred to us as "Little P1ssers".
I was always of the opinion that gatwick/thames approach controller would want to know about me skirting around their zone, under their CTA. Not one has ever told me they'd appreaciate a call.. and that if you have no mode C or transponder you are deemed seperated from traffic inside controlled airspace.
I guess the flip side of that is if a LCY inbound gets a TCAS RA from a PA28 at 1400ft under the CTA.. If controllers don't want to talk then it's tough tits about the RA.
and if you think Alan's stroppy wait til talkdownman gets here!
I was always of the opinion that gatwick/thames approach controller would want to know about me skirting around their zone, under their CTA. Not one has ever told me they'd appreaciate a call.. and that if you have no mode C or transponder you are deemed seperated from traffic inside controlled airspace.
I guess the flip side of that is if a LCY inbound gets a TCAS RA from a PA28 at 1400ft under the CTA.. If controllers don't want to talk then it's tough tits about the RA.
and if you think Alan's stroppy wait til talkdownman gets here!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and others are IGNORANT to what ATC at approach units in the south east actually does.
They are not there to provide people with a RIS when it is 40kms and Sky Clear (people ask daily). That is the job of a LARS unit. The fact that there is NOT eough LARS cover for busy airspace is not the fault of these approach units. Perhaps you should vent your anger at the poorly trained PPLs who call us daily who lead us to dislike GA more and more. (or the CAA for not funding LARS)
And no I and other ATCers don't neccessarily hate GA. F ar from it in fact. It can be a pleasure to work and help people who have a modicom of common sense.
We hate idiots who cannot avoid some airspace, don't appreciate the strain on the system or expect the earth for nothing.
Frankly I don't care what you think of me.... sorry to have ruined your rose tinted spectacle view of me or UK ATC!
Kirstey, the point is that I can call the traffic and the IFR traffic STILL takes an RA. So why bother calling me! Especially as 70% of the traffic know not to bother as we are too busy. If everyonecalled we could give accurate Traff Info.
(Not an invitation for everyone to call!!!)
So - why not:
1. Listen out on the frequenecy and gauge how busy the unit is first. If you here "Number four on standby" and you are not inbound to the zone or prepared to hold then just carry on outside CAS.
2. If you are that unsure as to your track keeping when flying 1/4 mile form the zone boundary, and the freq is busy why not just MONITOR the freq! You will get the feel of the traffic sceanrio. Also, I make blind calls on the freq if I see something come into the zone without authorisation.
Stay safe!
They are not there to provide people with a RIS when it is 40kms and Sky Clear (people ask daily). That is the job of a LARS unit. The fact that there is NOT eough LARS cover for busy airspace is not the fault of these approach units. Perhaps you should vent your anger at the poorly trained PPLs who call us daily who lead us to dislike GA more and more. (or the CAA for not funding LARS)
And no I and other ATCers don't neccessarily hate GA. F ar from it in fact. It can be a pleasure to work and help people who have a modicom of common sense.
We hate idiots who cannot avoid some airspace, don't appreciate the strain on the system or expect the earth for nothing.
Frankly I don't care what you think of me.... sorry to have ruined your rose tinted spectacle view of me or UK ATC!
Kirstey, the point is that I can call the traffic and the IFR traffic STILL takes an RA. So why bother calling me! Especially as 70% of the traffic know not to bother as we are too busy. If everyonecalled we could give accurate Traff Info.
(Not an invitation for everyone to call!!!)
So - why not:
1. Listen out on the frequenecy and gauge how busy the unit is first. If you here "Number four on standby" and you are not inbound to the zone or prepared to hold then just carry on outside CAS.
2. If you are that unsure as to your track keeping when flying 1/4 mile form the zone boundary, and the freq is busy why not just MONITOR the freq! You will get the feel of the traffic sceanrio. Also, I make blind calls on the freq if I see something come into the zone without authorisation.
Stay safe!