Flying in UK Danger Areas

[Timothy]

Partly following a discussion on PPL/IR about penetrating D201 without a clearance, I wrote to DAP:

Andy,

A general point and then some specific questions, if I may.

It is quite difficult, when in flight, to determine whether a DA is subject to Byelaws. The two sources appear to be (1) the remarks of UKAIP ENR5.1.3 and (2) whether the DA appears in the footnotes of the half-mill chart marked with an asterisk (there does not seem to be any indication on the chart.)

I wonder why the CAA makes the presence or absence of byelaws so obscure? Would it not make sense for charts to be marked as to whether they are, effectively, prohibited? (Unless I am missing something; but I am a very experienced user of UK OCAS, and, if I am missing it, I would guess that the great majority of others are too.)

The question which leads on from that is to the CAA’s attitude to the penetration of DAs which are not subject to byelaws. This could arise where (1) there is no DACS, (2) the DACS cannot be reached, or, indeed, (3) accidentally. Is it CAA policy to take notice of such a penetration? (I hesitate to call it an infringement, because I wonder if it is an infringement in the normal sense of the word).

If it is policy to pursue such a penetration, under what article would it be dealt with? Is it considered Endangerment?

If it is considered Endangerment, should there not be a policy to formally restrict access?

If it is not considered Endangerment, is there not an argument for distinguishing strongly between those DAs where access is restricted by law and those which are merely informative? This would place unrestricted DAs on a par with, for example, MATZs and AIAAs.

That actually raises another question, which is the CAA’s attitude towards civilian aircraft penetrating the non-ATZ parts of a MATZ without clearance. Is that considered Endangerment?

I come across a great deal of misunderstanding and myth among pilots about DAs. Many people just avoid the red areas on the chart, even if they only apply to helicopters, during the week or when activated by NOTAM. In some cases, for example D026 Lulworth, this can unnecessarily cause serious choke points where pilots who are not aware that the area is closed at weekends are funnelled into quite narrow gaps.

I realise that there is a glib answer of “pre-flight preparedness obviates all these problems”, but that does not allow for three truths:

1. that the information is obscure in the official publications,
2. that private pilots do not receive the level of training that professional and military pilots receive and
3. that private flying is permitted, and will often, not be constrained to a plan, the pilot is at liberty to change his mind as to route and level once airborne and cannot have the full AIP and Statute to hand.

I wonder if you would mind making CAA policy on these matters clear, and then may think about the promulgation of the policy and how that affects pilots?

Thank you!

Timothy

I have received the following, very full, answer:

Directorate of Airspace Policy
Off-Route Airspace 2

1 November 2012

UK DANGER AREA - POLICY

Your Reference: Policy on DA entry dated 31 October 12:24

Dear Mr T,

Your enquiry detailed at Reference has been forwarded to my desk as I hold responsibility for UK Danger Area (DA) Policy within the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP); and I am delighted to offer a response, which I hope will be of use.

I have chosen to respond to your points in item format, which I hope you will agree makes for ease of reading.

Item 1 – VFR Charting and Byelaws

DAs marked on UK VFR Charts, which have an associated Statutory Instrument (SI)/Bye-law, are prefixed with an *, exemplar: *D203 and this is noted within the legend text. Further it advises to ‘See UK AIP ENR 1-1-5’ where you will find the SI number against the DA should you wish research it in detail. I wouldn’t agree that the CAA makes presence or absence of DA SI/Bye-laws obscure as VFR charts note their presence and the UK AIP notifies their existence.

Item 2 – DA Penetration

A DA which has an associated and notified SI/Bye-law should only be penetrated in compliance with the detailed legislation, whilst those which have no SI/Bye-law are not avoids. You will be aware that DAs are ‘areas which have been notified within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft may take place or exist at such times as may be notified’ and that to cross the associated airspace safely, pilots should make good use of a Danger Area Crossing Service (DACS) or Danger Area Activity Information Service (DAAIS), where notified.

The provision of a DACS or DAAIS is to support the safe crossing of a DA and pilots are to ensure they do not endanger the safety of their aircraft or its occupants when transiting. Those DAs where no DACS or DAAIS is notified are again not avoids.

The Authority’s approach to the inappropriate penetration of DA airspace is to track DA airspace infringements through an all stakeholder group – the Airspace infringements Working Group – to understand better the reasons or causal factors associated. Should a pilot choose to transit said DA without gaining any airspace or activity information and subsequently endangers his aircraft or its occupant’s, legal action will be considered: UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) Articles 137 and 138 apply.

As an aircraft operator you will be well aware of this authority’s drive to ensure the Flexible Use of Airspace, to ensure efficiency, safety and availability. If DAs were to become Prohibited or Restricted Areas there would be a considerable loss of available Class G airspace, which would lead to a loss in flexibility of operations.

You may be interested to know that through a programme of proactive engagement by DAP over the past 12 months 805 nm3 of DA airspace has been permanently released. In addition, increasingly flexible activation (ie via NOTAM) and novel partitioning arrangements - such as with EGD011 (Dartmoor) - have significantly increased airspace access in the area to GA users. This process will continue aiming to deliver benefits for the network and GA alike.

In respect to comparing ATZ/MATZ/AIAA to a DA this could never be the case as those aircraft operating within a DA cannot comply with the Rules of the Air, due to the nature of their operations – hence they are contained within a DA. Additionally, other activities within a DA, such as the firing of heavy artillery and demolition have an uncontrolled element in their operation.

Item 3 – ATZ/MATZ

Non-military aircraft are not regulated to comply with a MATZ, but are to comply with the Rules of the Air pertaining to flights within an ATZ. Should a civil pilot chose to transit a MATZ, whilst remaining outside of the ATZ, and in doing so endangers his aircraft or occupants then again legal action in accordance with the ANO Articles 137 and 138 would be considered. To ensure the safe transit of a MATZ this authority would actively encourage aircraft operators to make full use of a notified MATZ crossing service.

Item 4 – Planning

I would not agree that ‘pre-flight planning’ is the glib answer, rather it is an essential element to flying operations. All the information to support pre-flight planning is available in UK Flight Information Publications and various other sources endorsed by the CAA. It is this authority’s view that pilot’s can and do generally make best use of available aeronautical information to support safe flying.

I thank you for your enquiry and I do hope that this note answers your points; and I wish you many hours of safe flying.

Yours faithfully

[Signed electronically]

Robert
R K O’Neill
Off-Route Airspace Specialist
Directorate of Airspace Policy
Civil Aviation Authority

I have replied:

Robert,

Let me thank you for such a full, and fast, response.

I apologise for the asterisk bit. I think that my misconception that they are not reliably printed on the chart stems from a misapprehension on my part that a much higher proportion are subject to bye laws than actually are!

I shall promulgate your response through the online forums, as I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding among pilots at all levels of knowledge and qualification, including instructors.

I am reassured particularly about D201, which covers a massive area, in which the density of UAVs must be very small. I would have thought that "big sky" theory applies in spades there. Even if DACS announces that the airspace is hot, and that there are UAVs flying, it still must be a safer place than over BNN, BKY or OCK on a sunny weekend! It is reassuring to know that the CAA would not consider entry actionable in its own right.

Any comments on that before I push this information out?

I really do appreciate your speed of response.

Timothy

[Contacttower]

Those DAs where no DACS or DAAIS is notified are again not avoids.

What does he mean by 'not avoids'?

[Timothy]

That we don't need to avoid them, I assume.

[Contacttower]

Yes I thought that as well, just seemed like a slightly curious way of putting it...

[matelo99]

Well I suppose technically they may not be avoids. It's just that if you enter a DA you may not come out in one piece again. It's called a Danger Area for a reason.

[peterh337]

I am not suggesting flying through danger areas, but in 12 years of flying I have never seen a DA in which there was any visible activity.

This applies particularly to the extensive coastal ones e.g. near Lydd and Southend which always appear to be totally deserted.

I have a feeling that a lot of these are held on by the military because if they don't periodically declare them "active" they will lose them.

[Keef]

As one who until recently lived near Southend (and occasionally took services at Churchend on Foulness), I can assure you that those DAs are active. I've heard some VERY loud bangs from them from time to time.

Southend Approach know whether they are active or not, and in my flying time there, they were active about as often as they were not.

[mad_jock]

Well the highland ones have things whizzing about in them and also the tain range has bombing weekly. But they are pretty good at letting you in.

As for the firing range ones alot of it is ricochet safety zones. You won't see anything.

The portland ranges are pretty active but even so Plymouth mil are pretty active sharing the airspace and if they can they will let you through.

It seems to me that alot of people just don't ask and actually the folk that do run these bits of airspace are more than happy to give access if they can.

[wsmempson]

The Portland DA's are usually pretty easy to get a DACS for; I understand that they are used for target-towing with live firing so, even if you don't get a DACS, as long as you can find another aircraft to fly in front of when you transit, you should be fine...

[2 sheds]

I am not suggesting flying through danger areas, but in 12 years of flying I have never seen a DA in which there was any visible activity.

This applies particularly to the extensive coastal ones e.g. near Lydd and Southend which always appear to be totally deserted.

I have a feeling that a lot of these are held on by the military because if they don't periodically declare them "active" they will lose them.

That doesn't accord with other pilots' observations (while being vectored through at the delared safety altitude) of shells bursting below them!

2 s

[HPMan]

Whilst flying parallel (but outside) the Salisbury Plain DAs (123 and 125) heading eastbound I once saw a French aircraft exit the DA northbound. Nothing much in that, except I'd already checked the DAs were active and I could clearly see 155mm shell bursts going off in the DA! Judging by the broadcasts being made by Lyneham the French aircraft did not have a DACS and was not (at that time of crossing) in contact with them.

In certain ground conditions and depending on ammunition fired there may be no obvious "splash" from the shells impacting the ground but a 155mm shell directly hitting your aircraft or exploding nearby on a proximity fuse would rather spoil your day.

[Timothy]

On the other hand, WWII experience shows that, even with deliberate targeting, it is very difficult indeed to get a shell and an aircraft to coincide in time and space

[HPMan]

Agreed, Tim, but I for one am not about to test out that theory - I shall leave it to Johnny Foreigner

[Timothy]

You can probably tell that I am approaching this from the pov of preferring individual freedom to Nanny Stateism.

I have knowingly taken risks in aeroplanes in the past, as some on here know, and am much happier to sit down and work out, with my wife, children and business partners what level of risk I am prepared to take rather than have the State tell me what risks I may or may not take.

What if (and it's only a what-if, I haven't done the sums), what if I could show mathematically that it is safer to fly though a live firing range than to cross the Channel in a single? Are we going to ban SEPs over water or do we permit flight through ranges? Or do we educate people to mitigate the risk?

On a similar note, my personal stuck record, from a mid-air pov, is that it is demonstrably safer to fly in cloud than VMC, but people allow their prejudices and voodoo to tell them otherwise.

[ShyTorque]

On a similar note, my personal stuck record, from a mid-air pov, is that it is demonstrably safer to fly in cloud than VMC, but people allow their prejudices and voodoo to tell them otherwise.

Ah, the old chant of "Big Sky"!

I've never relied on prejudices and voodoo but only on 39 years of personal flying experience.

You probably don't fly in UK in an aircraft equipped with a TCAS, especially in the winter or under CAS, at or below transition level, as many smaller aircraft do. This may include any type of helicopter, or some jet traffic at up to 250 kts.

The number of aircraft in IMC might be fewer, but what aircraft are airborne are often trying to achieve the same thing and they tend to be concentrated into shallow levels and/or corridors.

As for the main topic, I've operated military helicopters in Salisbury Plain under Salisbury Ops and other danger areas many times and having seen what goes on in there I definitely wouldn't risk crossing any of them without clearance! On one occasion we still came close to being blown out of the air due to an Army unit firing live ammunition without authorisation (155 mm shells were being fired from camouflaged positions directly below us - we were operating between 50 and 100 feet). Having asked for confirmation on the RT, as the guns were in our notified exercise area, we were initially informed only blanks were being fired. We received a very urgent radio call shortly afterwards to get behind the guns because they were not blanks (we thought the bangs were a bit loud). On another occasion up north we watched quite a number of ground to ground/air missiles trailing 2km long control wires going "rogue" and completely out of control. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near those, thanks.

Crossing a DA without clearance is a bit like trying to walk across a motorway or a railway track blindfold and with earplugs in. Not something any sensible person would do.

[Timothy]

You probably don't fly in UK in an aircraft equipped with a TCAS, especially in the winter or under CAS, at or below transition level, as many smaller aircraft do.

What makes you say that?

My longevity slightly pips yours, at over 41 years, and I have flown most types of type in most types of environment.

But none of that is relevant. Outside CAS aircraft don't collided IMC, but they do, regularly, VMC.

[Timothy]

I have been in further correspondence with Bob O'Neill:

UK DANGER AREA - POLICY

References:

A. CAA/DAPUK Danger Area – Policy: dated 31 October 2012.
B. UK Danger Area – Policy: dated 2 Nov 2012 14:43
C. UK AIP ENR 1.1.5 dated 17 December 2009

Dear Mr T,

Thank you for your response to this authority’s letter detailed at Reference A. I am delighted that you found it informative but I feel that in considering yours, detailed at Reference B, further expansion on the Civil Aviation Authority’s ’s policy on Danger Area (DA) Airspace is needed.

Again I have chosen to respond to yours in item format.

Item 1 – DA Activity

Regarding EG D201 Aberporth complex: you will note from the UK AIP that in addition to Unmanned Aircraft Operations there are a number of other activities notified which are dangerous to aircraft in flight: Live Firing (gunnery and missiles), Bombing, Pilotless Target Aircraft and Supersonic. As with all other DAs anyone of these notified activities, or a combination of, could be taking place within any part of the DA airspace during its notified opening hours.

Item 2 – DA Penetration

With an understanding that notified DA activity is dangerous to an aircraft in flight, hence the activity is contained within segregated airspace, penetrating a DA without gaining a crossing clearance from the DA Authority (DAA) could be seen as both reckless and foolish. As a professional aircraft operator I am sure you can see the safety benefits of penetrating/crossing an active DA in accordance with the DAA crossing clearance. DAA approval to cross a DA would be issued to ensure the crossing is accomplished safely, whilst not endangering the aircraft, any person or property.

This authority cannot emphasise strongly enough the flight safety importance of making best use of a DACS, Danger Area Activity Information Service or London Flight Information Service and Flight Information Publications to support the safe crossing of an active DA. If a DAA crossing clearance cannot be obtained and the status of a DA is unknown, such that pilots cannot establish if the DA is inactive, pilots should assume that a DA is active and remain outside.

Again, many thanks for a fast and informative response.

I think that the particular issue with D201 arises with a situation where Aberporth is not answering calls, but RAF Valley simply says that "it is notified as active." The same could arise with all the Channel DAs, Plymouth and FIS.

For small DAs, avoidance is not a problem, but 201 and the Channel ranges are of such extent, horizontal and vertical, that avoidance is a real issue for a relatively slow aircraft.

[soaringhigh650]

I don't get what's the issue in all this.

Lemme guess - you busted an active danger area, and now you are trying to justify the fact that you should be free from the convictions soon to be brought on you?

[ShyTorque]

I thought similar....

What makes you say that?

My longevity slightly pips yours, at over 41 years, and I have flown most types of type in most types of environment.

But none of that is relevant. Outside CAS aircraft don't collided IMC, but they do, regularly, VMC.

But do you fly in UK, in an aircraft equipped with a TCAS, especially in the winter or under CAS, at or below transition level?

[Timothy]

No, it arose out of the situation I just described, where someone wanted to cross 201, couldn't get an answer from Aberporth, but was told by Valley that it was hot but no further details, and no activity from them.

The question then is, what is the legal status of D201 (which is huge); the pilot elected to fly round, but I was interested to know the legal position.

But do you fly in UK, in an aircraft equipped with a TCAS, especially in the winter or under CAS, at or below transition level?

Sometimes, yes.

I fly my own aircraft, which doesn't have TCAS, in the winter or under CAS, at or below transition level almost exclusively, and I go into cloud if there is any to hide in. I often fly other people's aircraft with TCAS.

What is the point of the question?