Infringements of the Heathrow CTR

[englishal]

Am I missing something here? When you are sat in the aircraft, wings level, ball in the middle, how do you fly a track when there's a cross-wind? Do you wait until you veer off the GPS line a little and then correct, and continuously keep doing this? I can't think of any other way.

Because the GPS will give you your ground track, so you adjust that until it is the track required.

Actually IO has some very valid points. Real life nav and PPL nav are completely different - or can be if you want them to be. My real life nav consists of:

Reviewing paper chart
Entering my route into Memory Map / Flight star
Connecting to the internet to download weather and notams
checking
printing out a plog
programming GPS

Doing it this way takes 30 minutes for a long cross country. The PLOG is accurate in case GPS is lost (it calculates wind, GS, magnetic variation, course to steer etc...). One can either program the GPS manually (simple route) or plug one's laptop in and download the route and off you go. I actually find it quite satisfying when the PLOG agrees within a minute or two.

If I'm flying a G1000 type of thing in the USA it is even easier. I know how far I'm going from the paper map and hence whether I can make it fuel wise (or use rule of thumb and range rings ). I then call 1800WXBrief for a weather and notam brief, jump in the plane and program the G1000.....off we go

IFR is even easier.....ATC tell you where to go Call 1800WXBrief, jump in the aeroplane, call ATC - they tel you how to get there, program GPS / G1000 and call for IFR release...easy

[slim_slag]

Originally Posted by englishal

.....Call 1800WXBrief......

If flying cross country I'd recommend 1-800-I-FLY-SWA

[High Wing Drifter]

Fuji,

it should not be forgotten that their systems are light years ahead of ours. If you havent flown there, you will simply not understand how good they are.

I haven't flown in the US, but my understanding is that GA is/was almost part of the essential/practical/useful transport infrastructure, no doubt due to it's size and wilderness expanses. GA has an almost irrelevant practical purpose in the UK, it is 90% sport. As IO540 frequently says, if you need to be somewhere...drive.

The UK will never achieve what the US has. The ATS structure will only become more intolerant of errant pilots and thus more inflexible.

Not sure what you mean by integrated: systems or airspace. My view is that the former means expense that we pay for (no thanks). The latter means joining the gaps between CAS (no thanks). Not sure what other practical and realistic options remain

[Fuji Abound]

Not sure what you mean by integrated:

In the States they call in flight following here we call it a hand over.

In short the proposals for a London area (read south east) RIS makes a great deal of sense. So far as the pilot is concerned one seamless service that provides the pilot with a RIS around the conjested south east. We are "promised" it is coming.

The UK will never achieve what the US has. The ATS structure will only become more intolerant of errant pilots and thus more inflexible.

I dont agree. In fact I havent detected any change in the level of tolerance (thank goodness, and well done to all those ATCOs). In fact on a slightly different subject I find in the years I have been flying zone transits are given more readily than ever (with one notable exception!). Moreover, I think the authorities would like us to move closer to the service and systems the US has. Some of that is for cynical reasons perhaps (less CAS busts, better ability to monitor what we are doing) but who cares if it makes for a safer and more integrated enviroment for all airspace users we should embrace these changes.

[chevvron]

The plan is that handovers between London LARS sectors will be 'seamless'; just a frequency change and the receiving controller will already have your details.

[High Wing Drifter]

Of how much practical benefit will that be? It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements.

[IO540]

Not sure what other practical and realistic options remain

There is an alternative if controversial POV: fly on your own devices, in Class G (or Class E), without any ATS service.

That's what mostly happens in UK Class G already. Only a few pilots call up London Info. With modern navigation, it's pretty effortless to just zoom around the place.

And if everybody had a Mode C transponder, anybody who spent money on TCAS would see them (no need for a radar service).

It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements

You are not under any abligation to call up a Class G airfield unless crossing their ATZ. And if you do, what can they tell you? They are mostly A/G radio so can tell you about their own circuit traffic, that's all. And if you have a GPS you can avoid all the ATZs easily to start with.

I never call up anybody unless I can get a meaningful service, and to me that means radar. A FIS is not worth the radio work, for what one gets out of it .... "13 aircraft known in your area"

[Fuji Abound]

Of how much practical benefit will that be? It isn't realistic to navigate around the London area without having to break off from LARS to get ATZ transit information/clearances and local movements.

Yes we could all go steaming around relying on DR and see and avoid. However there is evidence that for many this does not work. If you want to do so and believe it is safe to do so - then that is up to you. In the first case if your skills are adequate, it clearly is safe, in the second I am afraid the evidence is very much against you.

There are many (including me) that believe the use of moving map GPS (with adequate training) would avoid a lot of CAS busts.

There are many (presumably including NATS) that believe a London RIS would also avoid many CAS busts and reduce the risk of collision. (I also agree).

Why on earth anyone would want to dismiss a genuine initiative to improve safety so that is not going to cost them a single penny defeats me.

Moreover, if you think you are going to steam through someones overhead, and by talking to them on the radio believe this is going to help their local traffic and you avoid each other then you are dreaming. Please read what IO540 has to say.

IO540 also has a sound point about POV - the trouble is it as you gain experience you can forget that when we all first learnt your nav skills can let you down. RIS provides AT the opportunity to avoid CAS busts before they have happened. How often (for whatever reason) do we hear those people who are sensible enough to ask for a RIS - G-XXXX if you continue on that track / height you will infringe CAS. Secondly, and unfortunately, there remains a strong anti transponder lobby. Whatever the merits of their position on this, all the time a significant part of the traffic is not transponding TCAS is not a complete answer. I also accept that cost will remain a significant consideration for some (and understandbly so) for a time to come yet.

In conclusion, IMHO a very well done to NATS for attempting to provide and integrated RIS around London. I for one are very grateful and believe if pilots use it (and in particular it is many of the low timers who need it most) it will be a significant step forward in reducing the risk of CAS busts and will avoid an wholly unnecessary mid air.

[Roffa]

Blimey Fuji, you've changed your tune from a week or two back!

Nice to see though

[Fuji Abound]

Thank you. Very happy to accept I was wrong - if I was.

I think the thrust of the points I was making earlier was that I do not accept NATS position in the past. It still reamins my understanding that they could have chosen to provide feeds to a number of units in and around London at marginal cost, but chose not to do so. I do not know whether or not I was misinformed but that was the story I was told by two different ATCOs.

I still stand by my original view that the impact of CAS in and around London in particular creates a singularly dangerous enviroment for GA both in terms of the potential to cause CAS busts and the risk of collision.

I am delighted that NATS appears to have now chosen to tackle the problem for which they have my whole hearted support.

I hope everyone involved in GA makes a real effort on their part to recognise NATS are making a real effort to reduce this problem and to co-operate in every possible way.

IMHO that means transponding if you possibly can, ensuring your navigation is accurate (and if that means using a moving map GPS as a backup because you do not trust your DR skills so be it) and assuming the capacity exists requesting and accepting a RIS.

[ATCO17]

It still suprises me though when I sit at work over an eight hour period and speak to only a dozen or so GA aircraft in the local area, despite many, many more routing around my little part of the world. It doesn't cost anything to call. Quite often I won't even assign you a squawk for a FIS or you don't need to be transponder equipped to receive any service at all in Class G. Most of the time, under a FIS, I have a pretty good idea where you are and can warn you if I feel you are straying towards CAS, or even into potentially close confliction with other traffic. If I was navigating around or close to CAS, I'd call someone for a service, just to get that warm, fluffy feeling inside!

A17

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by ATCO17

If I was navigating around or close to CAS, I'd call someone for a service, just to get that warm, fluffy feeling inside!

Hear, hear. My feelings exactly.

Out of interest, A17, are you allowed/willing to tell us which frequency you work?

[High Wing Drifter]

ATC,

I'm not sure which unit you are station at. But generally it seems to me that Farnborough is at RIS capacity frequently when I fly and is sometimes difficult to get a call in before you need to speak to somebody else anyway. Brize certainly went through a phase of declining FIS/RIS requests and would suggest Lynham, Luton or even London Inf!

I'm referring to weekends. The rare occasion I do flying in the week things are naturally svelt, even the air feel smoother mid-week!

[ATCO17]

Well, fortunately for you, but unfotunately for some of us, Northolt is pretty much manned seven days a week, and more often than not, from 0800 local until at least 2000 local - published hours. There you go! The cat's out of the bag! But hey, only there for another three weeks! To be honest folks, we are depserate for a bit of traffic to work, due to a high training commitment and a low level of local movements over the next few weeks. We welcome your calls for FIS, RIS, or, if you are IFR, RAS! One or two posters have mentioned some of the other units in the surrounding area, but if you are in the northern half of the TMA area, give us a try!
A17

[IO540]

Interesting ... never heard of anybody calling up Northolt. Do they offer a RIS? If so that would be useful.

Tell you what you could do to make some work, ATCO17: lobby the CAA to introduce one of the greatest contributions to safety in that area: a GPS approach into Elstree, Panshanger, etc, and you can then do the radar service for it, free of charge since they won't be able to afford to pay for it anyway. This is only partly tongue in cheek, because the matter will have to come to a head if GPS approaches ever take off (so to speak) - because, on the scale of GA utility in the UK as a whole, they are largely pointless unless provided at non-ATC airfields.

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by IO540

Northolt. Do they offer a RIS?

Yes


But yawn to the rest of one of IO540's usual rants. ;-)

[ShyTorque]

We welcome your calls for FIS, RIS, or, if you are IFR, RAS! One or two posters have mentioned some of the other units in the surrounding area, but if you are in the northern half of the TMA area, give us a try!

Next time I'm bimbling through the LHR Zone, I'll try to remember to give you a call for a flight information service.

[DFC]

Two things that I must point out are;

1. The CAA encourages RTFs and FTOs to include GPS training as part of the sylabus. However, basic navigation skills and radio navigation still have to reach the required standard.

2. GPS can be used on flight tests with certain restrictions.

Regards,

DFC

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by DFC

2. GPS can be used on flight tests with certain restrictions.

Not on a UK CPL(H) flight test, it can't.

I specifically remember the Chief CAA Examiner turning it off (and it wasn't even a moving map GPS.)

[DFC]

Don't know about rotary but the following is the exact wording from the Chief Examiner a few years back;

As a general rule GPS equipment installed in aircraft may be used (in accordance with its installation approval) during skill and proficiency tests at the discretion of the examiner, but not until the navigational skills required by the test have been demonstrated.

Perhaps your examiner exercised their discretion not to?

Regards,

DFC