Are you going to Infringe CAS Tomorrow?
Joined: Aug 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 128
From: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Hello!
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Just look here:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...l-summary.html
Greetings, Max
NB: Wouldn't it be a smart idea to hold aerobatics displays and competitions in controlled airspace in the first place? Like inside control zones of airports that don't get much traffic on weekends. It works nicely in my part of the world!
...above you a pilot could be in CAS without a clearance - if they are caught, chances are nothing more than a written warning from the CAA.
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...l-summary.html
Greetings, Max
NB: Wouldn't it be a smart idea to hold aerobatics displays and competitions in controlled airspace in the first place? Like inside control zones of airports that don't get much traffic on weekends. It works nicely in my part of the world!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Motorists have road signs telling them the speed limit and the limitations of the road. They also have dedicated lanes to follow, white lines marking the lanes. A motorist who has no clue can drive around London by following road signs and make a pretty good job of it. Motorists only drive in 2 dimensions so it is a lot easier.....
For starters
For starters
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
I was at Elvington helping at the BAeA Aerobatics competition where there was a NOTAMed TRA in operation. I lost count after about ten, of the infringements of the area.
Q)EGTT/QWBLW/IV/M/W/000/045/5355N00059W002
A)EGTT B)0905010800 C)0905021900
D)0800-1900
E)AEROBATIC CONTEST WI 2NM 5355N 00059W (ELVINGTON, N YORKS)
AUS 09-05-0143/AS2
F)SFC G)4100FT AMSL)
"TRA"? I think not. It's a simple nav warning, and the airspace is there for all airspace users.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,114
Likes: 1,088
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
I agree, that doesn't constitute reserved airspace - looks like it was still in class G. Bad airmanship not to recognise and avoid it though.
These days I use GPS (moving map) every time I fly, VFR or not. It's absolutely routine to programme user waypoints as lat/longs, such as a turning point or a landing site in a back garden, paddock or at a hotel, for example. I always re-check the co-ordinates then review the route to confirm it matches the lines on my chart.
The problem we appear to face is that folk either don't actually know the fundamentals of detailed flight planning, or fail to implement them correctly once en route.
I am an avid user of GPS, but not for flying. Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?
The problem we appear to face is that folk either don't actually know the fundamentals of detailed flight planning, or fail to implement them correctly once en route.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
Well this appears to have turned in to the NATS should give up airspace and give a radar service to those outside CAS debate.
Just to say that NATS introduced Farnborough LARS to provide a service to aircraft outside of CAS to try to prevent pilots flying without a service and getting lost.
As for the debate about the complicated airspace, the airspace around Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, and Heathrow has not changed in the last ten years and and in the case of some of the zones, not in the last twenty years.
It may be percieved as complicated, but that is only because it is trying to use as little CAS for the task of the airport and provide the minimum safety distance between aircraft operating in CAS and those that can operate right up[to the edge of CAS with out talking to anyone else.
As for the cars V aircraft argument, I could be flippant and say that is why pilots have maps - so that they don't cross the white lines!!!
I don't know though we must be one of the few countries in the world that regularly allow solo student pilots to fly 500 feet from fully laden B747s and yet require that pilot who is professionally qualified to remain 3nm/1000ft from other aircraft in CAS.
perhaps the safest way forward would be to make all CTAs CTRs and that way we would not need TMZ
I'm hoping that you all know the difference!
Just to say that NATS introduced Farnborough LARS to provide a service to aircraft outside of CAS to try to prevent pilots flying without a service and getting lost.
As for the debate about the complicated airspace, the airspace around Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, and Heathrow has not changed in the last ten years and and in the case of some of the zones, not in the last twenty years.
It may be percieved as complicated, but that is only because it is trying to use as little CAS for the task of the airport and provide the minimum safety distance between aircraft operating in CAS and those that can operate right up[to the edge of CAS with out talking to anyone else.
As for the cars V aircraft argument, I could be flippant and say that is why pilots have maps - so that they don't cross the white lines!!!
I don't know though we must be one of the few countries in the world that regularly allow solo student pilots to fly 500 feet from fully laden B747s and yet require that pilot who is professionally qualified to remain 3nm/1000ft from other aircraft in CAS.
perhaps the safest way forward would be to make all CTAs CTRs and that way we would not need TMZ
I'm hoping that you all know the difference!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 21
From: London
Perhaps the arrival of GPS and glass cockpit, things have changed in the minds of the pilots?
It seems to me we are in a transition, where ultimately we will be given GPS navigation which will include NOTAM compliance and warnings, almost like automated flying with the pilot there to check what the machine does?
Thats not so far from the big ships flying, where hand flying is sometimes actively discouraged!
It could be "airways style" routings (though not airways restricted, VFR) but could also be "approved free flying boxes" with warnings (3D) at 1nm and 0,5 nm from the edges
It seems to me we are in a transition, where ultimately we will be given GPS navigation which will include NOTAM compliance and warnings, almost like automated flying with the pilot there to check what the machine does?
Thats not so far from the big ships flying, where hand flying is sometimes actively discouraged!
It could be "airways style" routings (though not airways restricted, VFR) but could also be "approved free flying boxes" with warnings (3D) at 1nm and 0,5 nm from the edges
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 1
From: Here
On a slight aside, but one advantage of routing (long routes) via airfields or VOR etc. is that you can explain quickly and easily to ATC your intentions. Equally, by flying directly through the overhead you should be completely clear of all the local traffic (who will be either just on or just off the tarmac).
If they have a clear idea of where you are going, quickly and concisely, then the safety level has already risen considerably.
Explaining that you are going via a point "approximately 25nm to the NW of Toytown Intl" is only going to lead to confusion... Even worse if you actually rattle a pile of lat/longs at the poor guy!
Safe flights! Sam.
If they have a clear idea of where you are going, quickly and concisely, then the safety level has already risen considerably.
Explaining that you are going via a point "approximately 25nm to the NW of Toytown Intl" is only going to lead to confusion... Even worse if you actually rattle a pile of lat/longs at the poor guy!
Safe flights! Sam.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Sam, good point. But this could be mitigated by having unambiguous VFR reporting points, easy to distinguish in the field, on the map and in the GPS. Road, railway, river crossings, edges of towns, that sort of thing.
Reminds me of a story though. As I remember, this was somewhere in California. A pilot was reporting "Over the Big Hill". Cross controller: "Which big hill, we have several". "I'm over reporting point Big Hill, look at your map". And sure enough, there was a VRP called "Big Hill" listed on the map. That was perhaps not the best name for that VRP.
Reminds me of a story though. As I remember, this was somewhere in California. A pilot was reporting "Over the Big Hill". Cross controller: "Which big hill, we have several". "I'm over reporting point Big Hill, look at your map". And sure enough, there was a VRP called "Big Hill" listed on the map. That was perhaps not the best name for that VRP.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Just to say that NATS introduced Farnborough LARS to provide a service to aircraft outside of CAS to try to prevent pilots flying without a service and getting lost.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: UK
Quote:
Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?
Sure, but indeed time-consuming and error prone. Particularly since you'll want the pencil line on the map to correspond to the magenta line on the GPS, normally. Drawing lines from airfield to airfield is easy.
Surely it is possible to programme any location as a waypoint using either Lat/Long or OS grid refs? Or would that be too time-consuming?
Sure, but indeed time-consuming and error prone. Particularly since you'll want the pencil line on the map to correspond to the magenta line on the GPS, normally. Drawing lines from airfield to airfield is easy.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Right here
Sam, good point. But this could be mitigated by having unambiguous VFR reporting points, easy to distinguish in the field, on the map and in the GPS. Road, railway, river crossings, edges of towns, that sort of thing.
Better still, most VFR pilots think IFR waypoints can't be located so they don't use them, meaning less crowded skies for me...
I tried programming a full VFR flight with half a dozen "typical VFR waypoints" (churches, oddly shaped lakes etc) into the GPS as lat long once. After 25 mins of punching and twisting, all the while hooked up to the battery cart, I was convinced I'd never do that again. At least not while using panel mount GPS.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 939
Likes: 1
From: UK
If aerodromes happen to be on my route I check the notams so as to decide whether to fly above the ATZ (or overhead) or a few miles away laterally. If in doubt I avoid laterally to be sure of avoiding gliding winch ropes or parachute activity. It's truly not hard either to plan or to fly. Moreover if you can't manage to get NOTAMs from the web you can get them over the telephone.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
From: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
bookworm, apologies for referring to the area as a TRA. I drove to Elvington so hadn't needed to read the NOTAMs. We had been discussing TRA whilst I was there and I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that one was in existence for the competition. It doesn't, however, excuse the behaviour of the transgressors - only an idiot would go near the place if he or she had read the NOTAM.
We had been discussing TRA whilst I was there and I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that one was in existence for the competition. It doesn't, however, excuse the behaviour of the transgressors - only an idiot would go near the place if he or she had read the NOTAM.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I'm often inclined to route overhead aerodromes well above cct height. Easy to spot, if you need to divert, no problem. I'd probably talk to them unless receiving a Traffic service from someone else (e.g. o/h Plymouth, talking to Plymouth Mil and not Plymouth)....
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
Englishal, The other thing that is co-located at some airports OCAS above circuit height is the IAF for the procedural approach (such as the ones at Plymouth). Best be talking to either Plymouth Mil or Plymouth approach if you're flying through the overhead at 3000ft as there may well be an Airsouthwest Dash 8 flying to/from the PY in the procedure.
SB
SB
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 519
Likes: 16
From: Luton
As for the debate about the complicated airspace, the airspace around Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, and Heathrow has not changed in the last ten years and and in the case of some of the zones, not in the last twenty years.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Am I the only one who find this thread a typical condescending attack by an air traffic controller?
Pilots make mistakes and so do controllers. Stupid threads like this attacking pilots are pointless and just damage the relationship.
Pilots make mistakes and so do controllers. Stupid threads like this attacking pilots are pointless and just damage the relationship.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bose
No, you are not alone.
I also think that those in glass houses should not throw stones.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, if you compare the LTMA to the LAX basin, UK ATC management/practitioners have lessons to learn in providing good service levels to all, but these will not be taken on board, due to 'not made here' syndrome.
No, you are not alone.
I also think that those in glass houses should not throw stones.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, if you compare the LTMA to the LAX basin, UK ATC management/practitioners have lessons to learn in providing good service levels to all, but these will not be taken on board, due to 'not made here' syndrome.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
We had been discussing TRA whilst I was there and I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that one was in existence for the competition. It doesn't, however, excuse the behaviour of the transgressors - only an idiot would go near the place if he or she had read the NOTAM.
I agree. It's the last thing I'd want to be too close to. But I'm sure you'd also agree that there is a significant difference between questionable airmanship in the vicinity of such a nav warning, and an airspace infringement, which is rather more black and white.