Are you going to Infringe CAS Tomorrow?

[Rod1]

Bose

It is yet another attack, but if NATS are biding for more controlled airspace and more TMZ’s this is the sort of continued pressure which will be applied. I understand the LAA have made several complaints about NATS breaking the rules on consultations, so expect the confrontational stuff (official and unofficial) to continue.

Rod1

[steveking]

LAA response to the proposed TMZ

http://www.lightaircraftassociation....0draft%202.pdf

[zkdli]

Hi Bose-x,
Sorry I haven't been able to reply I have been a bit busy working.
This is not intended to be a condescending attack on the GA community
I have just seen the weekly stats for the London TMA today and I thought that you would like to know the official number of infringements that was on our notice board.

Yes pilots make mistakes and so do controllers but since the 1st of April, it appears that at least 60 pilots have made a mistake and flown in to controlled airspace without a clearance (those are the ones that were reported, the actual number may have been higher) and 11 of them have caused a loss of separation.
The stats also show that in the same time period last year there were 30 pilots reported flying in to CAS.

When I started this thread I thought that we had somewhere around twenty infringements in the last week but it appears that the total was twentyfive.

As a controller I am getting very worried about this total what do you think of it? Am I just worried over nothing?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by zkdli

As a controller I am getting very worried about this total what do you think of it? Am I just worried over nothing?

It depends a bit on what is being measured. Certainly you would expect infringements to be way up with the introduction of automatic detection and reporting systems, which if memory serves was implemented in early 2008. The stats would seem to correspond with this.

On the other hand serious loss of separation incidents in NATS airspace seem to be down 70% from 2006 to 2008. Due to the highly seasonal nature of infringements, it is difficult to have a view if 2009 is going to be better or worse than 2008.

Without knowing a bit more about the pattern of incidents one can't really comment. A loss of separation could be a WW aircraft 1/4 mile outside the ATZ being 4.75 miles and 3000 feet away from someone on approach (I seem to remember you need to generate a 5 miles or 4000 (or 5000 can't remember) foot separation from an infringer) or there could have been 11 butt clenching moments with two targets merging and mercifully both still flying. Very different implications for risk and level of concern we should have.

Not withstanding the above, clearly there are some significant issues in training, planning and situational awareness that need to be improved for pilots.


On your previous comment re student pilots and 747. The UK is in fact very odd in having absolute control abutting against total lack of control/service. However, most developed countries (including the UK) seem to be able to mix GA and CAT in the same general airspace - so no, I don't think the UK is anyway unusual in the general principle of sharing airspace.

[gasax]

I suspect you are worrying unnecessarily.

Automatic detection of infringements makes a lot of sense - in terms of bringing the event to controllers attention, but it does not identify the importance or potential impact.

See the LAA response to the Stansted TMZ and you see tiny numbers of serious infringements. Now there is no doubt that number may be down to effective controller actions. None the less the 'system' a combination of auto- detection, controller actions and even enforcement largely works.

What really worries me is the view from many controllers that a quiet life is much more preferable to offer a service of having to intervene. The classic 'remain clear' response that so may ATC units give to GA.

The contrast with countries like France is very very stark. I arrive close to a French TMA - I call on the VFR frequency and they tell me the routing and to call when clear. A huge contrast with 'remain clear'. It is a mindset and one which seems to come from the private profit orientated operations where controller workload managment is as important as managing traffic.

If NATS are unwilling to give the data which is supposed to support their need to restrict traffic then we are reaching a point where the governed will no longer accept that situation.

[englishal]

and flown in to controlled airspace without a clearance

How many of them were CAT and level busts (i.e. IFR traffic) as opposed to VFR ? For it to mean anything then they type of flight needs to be mentioned.

We were once being vectored by London Control....Suddenly this supervisor comes on the blower and says "Callsign....do you have a navigation problem"....to which we replied "No", then he came back all condecending and said "you have just infringed an active danger area".....to which we replied " we were just flying the heading given to us by the London controller"....Then it went quiet and sheepish then, handed off to someone else. Of course we never reported anything....

[zkdli]

From what i understand from the information boards on safety that are around swanwick, the number of serious losses of separation have doubled since April. What i find interesting is that the numbers of infringements appears to be double, but from friends flying in the local area, the number of bookings at their flying clubs are down about 20%
This looks like less flights but more infringments what has changed?

MM Flynn is right we do have detection for squawking infringers now and that does help but it has been in for over a year and the numbers are higher now than when it was first in use.

[hum]

296 tip

Pianorak wrote: The Garmin 296 has the useful "Edit on Map" facility. Having programmed BKP to Top Farm press "Edit on Map" and move magenta line slightly east away from the Panshanger ATZ which also keeps you clear of the Luton and Stansted CTRs. Takes but seconds

Thanks for that - nice feature. Another useful one is to use the 'proximity' tab in the 'points' section. Draws a red circle around a point which can be great for avoiding a Notam...

[Nobodys Desk]

Wow, I am impressed by how many excuses have been used on this thread. Everybody makes mistakes, be it controllers or pilots but to learn from them you have to admit to them. Whether or not a person agrees with the amount of CAS in the UK or how GA traffic is dealt with is immaterial. A pilot is required to carry up to date maps and is required to get an ATC clearance before entering CAS, anything else is just an excuse. Before anyone starts, I have both an ATC & a Pilot's licence, I have infringed CAS (numerous years ago) but I contacted the unit involved, took the harsh words and apologised. Yes I was unfamiliar with the airspace and yes I had other distractions but I was wrong, no excuses. In my mind some people on here need to remember their responsibilities.

[Rod1]

zkdli

Just so I can understand the “big picture”

I assume you work for NATS?

Did you take any part in the creation of the TMZ case for NATS?

Do you have any comments on the LAA assertion that it has been written to “hide the real numbers” etc etc.?

Rod1

[IO540]

Suddenly this supervisor comes on the blower and says "Callsign....do you have a navigation problem"....to which we replied "No", then he came back all condecending and said "you have just infringed an active danger area".

That is quite incredible. This is a radar control environment. London Control are supposed to know about notams etc. IFR traffic in CAS is not responsible for avoiding danger areas and 99% of pilots in that airspace would know nothing about them.

[Roffa]

This is also the internet, caveat emptor.

[zkdli]

Rod 1
Question one - yes
Question two - no
Question three - I am not sure which bit you are referring to but looking at the letter I may be blind but I didn't notice the "hide the numbers bit" - sorry, but I think that from what I have said here you can see that I think that the issue is real and a risk to aircraft in CAS.

DLI

[PPRuNe Radar]

That is quite incredible. This is a radar control environment. London Control are supposed to know about notams etc. IFR traffic in CAS is not responsible for avoiding danger areas and 99% of pilots in that airspace would know nothing about them.

Incredible ?? So is that !!

Pilots flying in CAS are NOT exempt from checking NOTAMs and knowing about things which will affect their flight. Nor are they exempt from their responsibilities in avoiding any restrictions or hazards simply because they are expecting ATC to do it all for them.

ATC providing a service to aircraft in CAS will 99.99% of the time point out any hazards which they think the pilot is not going to take account of. But if they have not placed the pilot on a vector to take them in to the hazard airspace yet the aircraft appears to be going to (or actually does) infringe that airspace, whose fault is that, if not the pilots ?

There are only 2 circumstances I can think of where this could possibly occur.

1. The pilot allows his aircraft to leave CAS due to poor navigation (or some other circumstance such as weather) and enters a Danger Area which abuts or is very close to the CAS boundary.

2. The pilot files along a route which is available at the planned time the aircraft will transit the airspace but then delays the flight, taking no account of the fact that the airspace is now not available. This happens not infrequently to aircraft using Conditional Routes which transit Managed Danger Areas (in the North Sea for example). Most of these are caught quickly when telling the pilot his routeing on first contact (and receiving the puzzled silence of an inadequately briefed pilot), and then passing it to him again and explaining why he can't fly on his filed route.

It is hard to think of another example where the filed route goes through a Danger Area, or where ATC would be vectoring you in CAS where there is also a Danger Area ... unless englishal can elaborate

[IO540]

Pilots flying in CAS are NOT exempt from checking NOTAMs and knowing about things which will affect their flight. Nor are they exempt from their responsibilities in avoiding any restrictions or hazards simply because they are expecting ATC to do it all for them.

I think you could try telling that to the next 100 747 pilots flying into LHR

In a radar control environment, it is just not normal practice to get enroute notams. I normally do it, not so much for enroute stuff but to discover closed runways, landing aids, or even entire airports But the way IFR works around the world, it just isn't normally done.

I am informed that ATC get the notams each morning (or whatever) and plot any affecting their area on some map in the room. That way, when vectoring traffic, they can avoid stuff like airshow TRAs extending up into CAS. The jet pilot in his Tupolev is sure to know nothing of this - regardless of where the responsibility lies.

It's a bit like expecting pilots to read the national AIPs. In the IFR world, this isn't normally done either. You work out the routing, file it, call up the handling agent to sort out any PPR/slot issues, and fly. It is only in the VFR world where the pilot is going to (hopefully) do all this due diligence.

[Rod1]

zkdli

Sorry you did not recognize the quote, here are some more;

“NATS secretive approach to the situation at Stansted makes a mockery of GA partnership forum”

“(the LAA) have written a formal letter of objection to the CAA concerning the mass of misleading and false statements in the consultation document”

All from page 31 of the current LAA mag with the title “NATS: HEAD ON CHALLENGE”

I am sure your corporate communications and PR department can get you a copy.

Rod1

[zkdli]

From where I sit the mockery comes from over 300 pilots flying in to CAS in the last 12 months and everyone thinking that this is somehow NATS fault .

I have heard the arguments about how transponders are heavy and expensive and that they can't be fitted to the light aircraft that are operating around the airspace.

i have also heard the arguments that some put forward about NATS not letting pilots in to CAS for VFR transits.

I find it interesting that we were in radio contact with a hot air balloon the other day that had a transponder and recieved a special VFR clearance in the london control zone.

AS for NATS being secretive about Stansted - The fact that we are talking about it on all the forums, have consultation on this and that we have been going to the GA community for the last three years over our concerns just makes me hold my hands up in despair.

(I also have a feeling of deja vu with this last set of comments - wasnt this on the last infringements thread?)

[PPRuNe Radar]

I think you could try telling that to the next 100 747 pilots flying into LHR

Normally they will let their Ops guys sift the information for them and put them in their briefing pack My last few trips up front have all included a Captain's briefing on the NOTAMs for the route, albeit they are those identified to him by his Ops Department.

As the CAA seem keen to prosecute some offending GA pilots for entering CAS (infringing), then maybe we need to let a few unbriefed jet pilots 'infringe' NOTAM'ed restricted or Danger Areas and then ask the CAA to take them to court as an example If only ATC's Duty of Care didn't get in the way before we get to that stage .... damn

It seems to me that we have a large dose of double standards in aviation. The poor little guy is lambasted and punished if they don't read NOTAMs, charts, or publications such as the AIP, and subsequently put themselves where they shouldn't be. The big corporate or airline guy does the same thing and it's seen as acceptable that they don't need to bother with such trivia as NOTAMs, since everyone else will do that for them, won't they ?

Personally, I have a much more sympathetic ear when discussing an infringement with a GA guy who has tried his best but has been caught out by other circumstances such as weather, single pilot high workload ops, etc, compared to an airline or IFR pilot who doesn't seem to give a toss or even know what you are talking about. The latter should have a much higher standard of preparation and airmanship, based on their 'professional' status, level of training, experience, and probable resources. But every case on it's merits.

PS Maybe some of the European airline and GA operators need to move to the US system where a Flight Dispatcher 'nannies' them all the way through the flight regarding routeings, fuel, NOTAMs, etc. Some of the current ones certainly don't seem to have the knowledge to be out on their own without some adult supervision

[scooter boy]

an answer to the original question...

"Are you going to infringe CAS tomorrow?"

"Nah - not much of that 'round these parts - I'm more likely to hit a seagull"

SB

[Jumbo Driver]

Originally Posted by IO540

In a radar control environment, it is just not normal practice to get enroute notams.

Not sure I agree with that, IO540 ...

Notams should be available for all commercial flights to cover departure, en-route, arrival and diversion - albeit possibly highlighted or filtered by company or handling agent Ops - but they should be available and included in the briefing paperwork.

I certainly wouldn't want to despatch on an international flight without relevant Notams. It is, after all, the Commander's legal responsibility to both check and comply with Notams - although of course ATC will generally do their best to protect us if we stray ...


JD