Infringements
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
Just for info, the CAA define business aviation (which is part of GA) as non-commercial movements operated on aircraft of 2730 kgs MTWA or greater conducting business operations (e.g aircraft owned and operated by Multi-national companies). So many of the flying school, private, or group movements are seen simply as GA and not as business GA.
They define air-taxi movements as a movement by an aircraft of less than 15MTWA operating a non-scheduled service, these services are predominantly sole-use charter operations. These would be included in any Civil Air Transport numbers.
It's hard to find any overall figures since this would require the CAA to do a census of flights. Clearly that would be a logistical and practical nightmare, although I remember it has been done in the past, possibly in the early 90's. But they can confirm that 235 million passengers used UK airports in 2006 (which does not include passengers who use UK airspace but do not fly in to or out of a UK airport). The number of movements to handle these passengers was 2.4 million (again, no account taken of overflights of UK airspace). That is a huge number of people and aircraft, and it is some of these who will be most exposed when there is an infringement occurring.
NATS recognises it is a potentially huge risk to its safe operation (and the ultimate safety of airspace users), hence the high profile campaigns and proactive measures being taken with all elements of the UK aviation industry (which includes GA).
They define air-taxi movements as a movement by an aircraft of less than 15MTWA operating a non-scheduled service, these services are predominantly sole-use charter operations. These would be included in any Civil Air Transport numbers.
It's hard to find any overall figures since this would require the CAA to do a census of flights. Clearly that would be a logistical and practical nightmare, although I remember it has been done in the past, possibly in the early 90's. But they can confirm that 235 million passengers used UK airports in 2006 (which does not include passengers who use UK airspace but do not fly in to or out of a UK airport). The number of movements to handle these passengers was 2.4 million (again, no account taken of overflights of UK airspace). That is a huge number of people and aircraft, and it is some of these who will be most exposed when there is an infringement occurring.
NATS recognises it is a potentially huge risk to its safe operation (and the ultimate safety of airspace users), hence the high profile campaigns and proactive measures being taken with all elements of the UK aviation industry (which includes GA).
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 201
Likes: 9
From: Fareham
Even if we did have more LARS etc., based on today's level of radio competence, it would not make much difference.
The same people who bust the CAS now would be so busy stamping on one another's transmissions and burbling on with the wrong squawks, mixing up runway numbers with QFE, confusing north with south (I heard all this and more today) etc. etc. that all the really useful information would be missed.
In my business, we call these people muppets.... They will always exist.
The same people who bust the CAS now would be so busy stamping on one another's transmissions and burbling on with the wrong squawks, mixing up runway numbers with QFE, confusing north with south (I heard all this and more today) etc. etc. that all the really useful information would be missed.
In my business, we call these people muppets.... They will always exist.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Not every problem has a solution, and this one doesn't have one.
All the time it is permitted to navigate using such error-prone means (and I am not saying it should not be permitted) and all the time PPL training is just basic like it is, and all the time there are so many low-time pilots, people will be getting lost.
A radar service will pick up only those who are on frequency and are readily identifiable (with a transponder). One would need mandatory radio contact in Class G and I think that would be a shame. I would much rather have mandatory Mode C than mandatory radio contact.
Farnborough was very busy today - doing a great job as ever but as busy as they could handle I suspect. There is no way they would be able to handle mandatory radio in their radar area - they would need several controllers instead of one. This is another reason we don't have decent ATS for Class G - the workload would be huge and the services we do have hang in there only because many/most pilots fly non-radio or with a listening watch only. London Info need everybody to call them up like they need a hole in the head.
Mandatory radio contact exists in the IFR (airways) business and it works there because people are (generally) navigating with total accuracy and can be left alone for hundreds of miles until they need to be shoved around for a particular reason. But to eliminate CAS busts using a radar service would mean micro-managing loads of targets, many zig-zagging around like ants. It's plain silly IMHO to suggest that a radar service is a solution.
One could virtually eliminate CAS busts but it would involve a total transformation of GA practices: making everybody fly preplanned routes, no bimbling around, and everybody radio-navigating as per IFR. That's how I fly when I go somewhere for a purpose, and when I deviate from the planned route it is done with the utmost caution and with the aid of the CAA VFR chart running as a second GPS moving map. One cannot seriously suggest that everybody should be doing that, but it's probably the only way to make a dent in the problem.
If one wants to bimble around randomly OCAS, and obviously I believe the right should be preserved (remember it isn't a basic human right - a lot of Europe doesn't have it; try doing your own thing, non-radio, in say Greece) then mistakes will be made by a certain number of people. Dead reckoning is no good for random track navigation; sticking to well known local area is one way, a decent GPS is the other way but there is no way to push that one through. No normal aviation GPS is any good IMHO (not even the Garmin 496) because their airspace depictions are confusing as hell.
30 years from now, when nearly all spamcans will have huge glass panels, people will wonder what the fuss was about. However I think pilots' right will be seriously curtailed by then in other departments.
Now, all those old navigators will jump on me. Just remember that not every fresh PPL is an ex RAF 10,000hr expert sextant operator, or a special forces pilot, or somebody who knows the local area intimately.
All the time it is permitted to navigate using such error-prone means (and I am not saying it should not be permitted) and all the time PPL training is just basic like it is, and all the time there are so many low-time pilots, people will be getting lost.
A radar service will pick up only those who are on frequency and are readily identifiable (with a transponder). One would need mandatory radio contact in Class G and I think that would be a shame. I would much rather have mandatory Mode C than mandatory radio contact.
Farnborough was very busy today - doing a great job as ever but as busy as they could handle I suspect. There is no way they would be able to handle mandatory radio in their radar area - they would need several controllers instead of one. This is another reason we don't have decent ATS for Class G - the workload would be huge and the services we do have hang in there only because many/most pilots fly non-radio or with a listening watch only. London Info need everybody to call them up like they need a hole in the head.
Mandatory radio contact exists in the IFR (airways) business and it works there because people are (generally) navigating with total accuracy and can be left alone for hundreds of miles until they need to be shoved around for a particular reason. But to eliminate CAS busts using a radar service would mean micro-managing loads of targets, many zig-zagging around like ants. It's plain silly IMHO to suggest that a radar service is a solution.
One could virtually eliminate CAS busts but it would involve a total transformation of GA practices: making everybody fly preplanned routes, no bimbling around, and everybody radio-navigating as per IFR. That's how I fly when I go somewhere for a purpose, and when I deviate from the planned route it is done with the utmost caution and with the aid of the CAA VFR chart running as a second GPS moving map. One cannot seriously suggest that everybody should be doing that, but it's probably the only way to make a dent in the problem.
If one wants to bimble around randomly OCAS, and obviously I believe the right should be preserved (remember it isn't a basic human right - a lot of Europe doesn't have it; try doing your own thing, non-radio, in say Greece) then mistakes will be made by a certain number of people. Dead reckoning is no good for random track navigation; sticking to well known local area is one way, a decent GPS is the other way but there is no way to push that one through. No normal aviation GPS is any good IMHO (not even the Garmin 496) because their airspace depictions are confusing as hell.
30 years from now, when nearly all spamcans will have huge glass panels, people will wonder what the fuss was about. However I think pilots' right will be seriously curtailed by then in other departments.
Now, all those old navigators will jump on me. Just remember that not every fresh PPL is an ex RAF 10,000hr expert sextant operator, or a special forces pilot, or somebody who knows the local area intimately.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Originally Posted by WR
There is not a single instance of a type of a/c that would least-likely be flying with GPS (e.g. old rag & tube types such as Cubs, Aeroncas and Moths) infringing CAS.
This pattern is similar in all quarterly reports, year-round and year-on-year.
This pattern is similar in all quarterly reports, year-round and year-on-year.
A) More visible on radar
B) Squawking their altitude
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Preferably a nice solid raw blip, rather than a plot extracted electronic symbol; with plot extraction you can never be sure that all aircraft are showing, whereas with proper raw radar you can. Raw radar also makes it easier to identify non-transponders using the turn method, as you see the turn immediately, whereas the processor for a plot extractor often takes several seconds to realise a target is turning, and thus often displays a new heading in consecutive 'paints' rather than giving a track history showing a constant rate of turn.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
From: west london
Can agree with someaspects of Chevvron's argument, however, I'm all for encouraging pilots with transponder equipped aircraft to use the bloomin' things! Especially the Mode C. It can reduce the chance of a close call or, God forbid, mid-air, with a TCAS equipped aircraft. The selection of a wrong QNH is often a cause for infringement of the TMA, together with poor situational awareness. I have also seen many CTZ infringements, spoken to the pilots in question and received an excuse that they were "A little lost"! My response is use the radio! Call SVFR, Northolt or D & D on 121.5 if unsure of position. We would rather identify an aircraft and steer it in the right direction than have to avoid it, hold departures and/or break off arrivals. It can also save a lot of paperwork!
A17
A17
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The "simple" types will usually have several things going for them:
1) no transponder, so a vertical CAS bust will not be detected
2) flying lower down, so less likely to get picked up on primary
3) if they are seen to bust CAS, the low level contact is likely to be intermittent so they can't be traced all the way back home
4) flying non-radio, so even less likely to be traced
5) sticking to well known local area!
whereas nobody is going to buy say a SR2x/TB20 for local bimbles.
Remember only traced aircraft will be reported in the statistics, which means basically those who are being good boys, with Mode C and are on the radio.
1) no transponder, so a vertical CAS bust will not be detected
2) flying lower down, so less likely to get picked up on primary
3) if they are seen to bust CAS, the low level contact is likely to be intermittent so they can't be traced all the way back home
4) flying non-radio, so even less likely to be traced
5) sticking to well known local area!
whereas nobody is going to buy say a SR2x/TB20 for local bimbles.
Remember only traced aircraft will be reported in the statistics, which means basically those who are being good boys, with Mode C and are on the radio.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Originally Posted by WR
That such a/c don't show well on primary radar is not factual.
Let's back to reality.
Let's back to reality.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
WR - the reality is that your super duper unit (do tell us where it is) probably has something that chevvers is wanting: That is, a good old radar display which is not a computer screen. ie good solid primary returns like the ones we used to have - not a "+" for a primary return and a "x" for a secondary return.
Computers are used nowadays to interpret and display the returns on our screens. They surpress most of the primary contacts that are slow and low/even composite aircraft.
Dpn't be lulled into always believing you are clearly seen.
Computers are used nowadays to interpret and display the returns on our screens. They surpress most of the primary contacts that are slow and low/even composite aircraft.
Dpn't be lulled into always believing you are clearly seen.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
You've just taken the thread off into some speculative direction when there is a known, historical problem supported by hard facts, to deal.
Not sure you can state that, WR.
So far you have been lucky that those non-Mode C returns which you assume were below CAS actually were below CAS.
Etc.
Not sure you can state that, WR.
So far you have been lucky that those non-Mode C returns which you assume were below CAS actually were below CAS.
Etc.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
IO540,
You are quite right. I know that some of the most dangerous, and I use the word advisedly, infringements have been with aircraft that do not have a transponder of any type and the controller has been correct to assume that the aircraft was outside CAS. A microlight at FL80 for istance passing 0.16nm from a 737 and controllers only knew it was there when the 737 pilot called the traffic passing his 2 o'clock. I don't believe he would have been able to avoid it if it had been 12 o'clock...
You are quite right. I know that some of the most dangerous, and I use the word advisedly, infringements have been with aircraft that do not have a transponder of any type and the controller has been correct to assume that the aircraft was outside CAS. A microlight at FL80 for istance passing 0.16nm from a 737 and controllers only knew it was there when the 737 pilot called the traffic passing his 2 o'clock. I don't believe he would have been able to avoid it if it had been 12 o'clock...
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,401
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Well, judging by the virtual chaos on London Information yesterday, I would imagine that if many of those pilots hadnavigational skill equalling their abysmal RT skills, then there will indeed have been many infringements.....
Most RT seemed to be coming from the 'Lunch at Le Touquet' brigade. Which makes me wonder why there can't be a specific frequency dedicated to cross-channel crossings.... The rest of the world might then be able to use London FIS. Who, it has to be said, do a grand job of keeping some utter idiots safe. Including the bumbling incompetent who took over a minute to work out what 'squawk 1177 Mode C' meant.....
LARS. Nice to have when the few people left in the RAF can afford the time to provide it. Yesterday I went from Oxfordshire to Gamston and back doing a radio navigation and IF trip. Classic hazy conditions, good IMC rating weather! After leaving Brize we tried London FIS (whilst VMC at 3000ft), but that became impossible due to the wall-to-wall yakking. So a quick check with East Midlands and they were happy to provide us with a RIS in IMC. Up to FL50 and into the odd cloud when well clear of the Daventry CTA; all was peace and quiet as we turned at Cottesmore and descended to FL45 towards Gamston. Thanks, chaps and chapesses!
Back home at FL35 with a FIS from East Midlands in VMC towards CTM, then up to FL40 from CTM to DTY. Less than 1000' vertically from cloud, so technically IMC but unable to obtain a RIS from either East Midlands or Coventry....
Had it been a trip during the week, we could have used Brize, then Cottesmore and finally Waddington for LARS. But the service isn't available at weekends when traffic outside CAS is at its busiest - it really is time that a better service outside CAS became available 24/7!
Interestingly, our satanic device didn't have the CTM TACAN in its database. It was nice to have the non-IFR Garmin GPS150 backing up the IFR-approved FM-immune 1940's VOR technology though.....
Most RT seemed to be coming from the 'Lunch at Le Touquet' brigade. Which makes me wonder why there can't be a specific frequency dedicated to cross-channel crossings.... The rest of the world might then be able to use London FIS. Who, it has to be said, do a grand job of keeping some utter idiots safe. Including the bumbling incompetent who took over a minute to work out what 'squawk 1177 Mode C' meant.....
LARS. Nice to have when the few people left in the RAF can afford the time to provide it. Yesterday I went from Oxfordshire to Gamston and back doing a radio navigation and IF trip. Classic hazy conditions, good IMC rating weather! After leaving Brize we tried London FIS (whilst VMC at 3000ft), but that became impossible due to the wall-to-wall yakking. So a quick check with East Midlands and they were happy to provide us with a RIS in IMC. Up to FL50 and into the odd cloud when well clear of the Daventry CTA; all was peace and quiet as we turned at Cottesmore and descended to FL45 towards Gamston. Thanks, chaps and chapesses!
Back home at FL35 with a FIS from East Midlands in VMC towards CTM, then up to FL40 from CTM to DTY. Less than 1000' vertically from cloud, so technically IMC but unable to obtain a RIS from either East Midlands or Coventry....
Had it been a trip during the week, we could have used Brize, then Cottesmore and finally Waddington for LARS. But the service isn't available at weekends when traffic outside CAS is at its busiest - it really is time that a better service outside CAS became available 24/7!
Interestingly, our satanic device didn't have the CTM TACAN in its database. It was nice to have the non-IFR Garmin GPS150 backing up the IFR-approved FM-immune 1940's VOR technology though.....
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
IO540: there used to be two dedicated 'Channel Crossing' services, one from Lydd and the other from Kent Radar (at Manston), this latter being provided by a NATS controller working alongside the RAF Manston Approach controllers.
I'm sure if finance was forthcoming, the present ATS provider at Manston could do the same again (staff availability and radar serviceability permitting)
Also, provision of LARS isn't restricted to weekday only RAF units; what about Cardiff, Farnborough and Southend although admittedly their hands are tied somewhat due to a lack of SSR.
I'm sure if finance was forthcoming, the present ATS provider at Manston could do the same again (staff availability and radar serviceability permitting)
Also, provision of LARS isn't restricted to weekday only RAF units; what about Cardiff, Farnborough and Southend although admittedly their hands are tied somewhat due to a lack of SSR.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
From: Witney
Well there were 2 straight through the Weston on the Green DZ on Sunday morning (one Cessna, one Jodel) plus a Katana that got halfway through & then peeled off and b***** off quick.
Wearing a parachute or one of those nasty glider winch cables on your wingtip could really spoil your day!
Wearing a parachute or one of those nasty glider winch cables on your wingtip could really spoil your day!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
What great Wx
Well we have had fantastic weather this easter, haven't we.
Friday I did Plymouth to Humberside, didn't see a single aircraft at FL50.
Saturday took my old dad from Humberside to Rotterdam and back FL60, once again nil traffic except in the terminal areas.
Yesterday did Humberside to Plymouth at FL60/70, nil traffic except the Dunkeswell para dropping a/c (who was not talking to Exeter) which I never saw and no doubt never saw me as he spiralled up to drop his payload off while climbing through my level.
Exeter called his position to me and my TCAS confirmed this and let me manoevre safety around him.
ATC were busy but courteous and accomodating at all times - I was never denied a clearance.
Seems to me that 95% of the calls were coming from a/c at levels below 2000'.
Most of the RT I heard (and hopefully transmitted) was OK but there was the odd verbose call and very occasional embarrasing to listen to one.
I was going from southwest to north east so avoided the busiest airspace.
I am sure that the skies in the South East were even more of a hornet's nest than usual and would be interested to hear how many infringements there were, the type of a/c and level of pilot experience in each case.
Long may the weather last!
SB
Friday I did Plymouth to Humberside, didn't see a single aircraft at FL50.
Saturday took my old dad from Humberside to Rotterdam and back FL60, once again nil traffic except in the terminal areas.
Yesterday did Humberside to Plymouth at FL60/70, nil traffic except the Dunkeswell para dropping a/c (who was not talking to Exeter) which I never saw and no doubt never saw me as he spiralled up to drop his payload off while climbing through my level.
Exeter called his position to me and my TCAS confirmed this and let me manoevre safety around him.
ATC were busy but courteous and accomodating at all times - I was never denied a clearance.
Seems to me that 95% of the calls were coming from a/c at levels below 2000'.
Most of the RT I heard (and hopefully transmitted) was OK but there was the odd verbose call and very occasional embarrasing to listen to one.
I was going from southwest to north east so avoided the busiest airspace.
I am sure that the skies in the South East were even more of a hornet's nest than usual and would be interested to hear how many infringements there were, the type of a/c and level of pilot experience in each case.
Long may the weather last!
SB
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
well Chaps,
I said that I would find out the total for the weekend.I beleive that in LTCC they reported 6 infringements and Farnborough reported another 6.
There were at least two pilots who really took the biscuit (or some such word.)
one who decided that as the direct track from BPK to DET went through the LCY CTA he would follow this route even when specifically told to remain clear of CAS. (He new the CTA was there).
Another who flew a helicopter (with no squawk) just east of Redhill then two miles east of Gatwick and turned right to parallel the approach. the tower controllers idntified it as a helicopter. and the 767 pilot told TC the altitude as he departed and took avoiding action. (It was a bit lower than 2,000ft.)
Luckily all involved took immediate action and there was no danger to the aircraft other than the avoiding action and the stopped departures. The reason the nonsquawker was spotted was the Redhill tower saw the aircraft and called TC. Thanks Guys!
I said that I would find out the total for the weekend.I beleive that in LTCC they reported 6 infringements and Farnborough reported another 6.
There were at least two pilots who really took the biscuit (or some such word.)
one who decided that as the direct track from BPK to DET went through the LCY CTA he would follow this route even when specifically told to remain clear of CAS. (He new the CTA was there).
Another who flew a helicopter (with no squawk) just east of Redhill then two miles east of Gatwick and turned right to parallel the approach. the tower controllers idntified it as a helicopter. and the 767 pilot told TC the altitude as he departed and took avoiding action. (It was a bit lower than 2,000ft.)
Luckily all involved took immediate action and there was no danger to the aircraft other than the avoiding action and the stopped departures. The reason the nonsquawker was spotted was the Redhill tower saw the aircraft and called TC. Thanks Guys!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 939
Likes: 1
From: UK
Trundling back from Alderney at FL050 yesterday and talking to Bournemouth radar I noted that the long suffering controller (doing a great job I must say)had two infringers he was talking to! One in the Solent and one in his own CAS. One so persistent he told him he was going to be reported since he had managed to stop movements at Bournemouth.
