Flying on edge of Stanstead Zone.. Flight Plan/Nav
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how accurate is the map? Is it actually what will be referred to, should you be accused of infringement?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re flying close to boundaries, I came across a new experience today. When flying along the south coast I made it clear in my initial call that I was going to be keeping clear of controlled airspace (they sounded busy, the small dogleg didn't bother me as I was out for an enjoyable bimble). As I turned over Sandbanks I was told that if I wanted to 'drift in' to CAS they wouldn't have a problem so long as I stayed below 2,000 feet.
In terms of gear used, I'm an iPad user with Runway HD. This has a really useful flight logging tool which gives you the breadcrumbs of your route. Given the above comments about inaccuracy of radar, if accused of breaching this could be a useful defence (always assuming it shows you keeping clear of course !)
In terms of gear used, I'm an iPad user with Runway HD. This has a really useful flight logging tool which gives you the breadcrumbs of your route. Given the above comments about inaccuracy of radar, if accused of breaching this could be a useful defence (always assuming it shows you keeping clear of course !)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is. Look at your half mil map.
Is there any advantage apart from the added detail to using the 1:250,000 chart..
Anyone carry both?
Scoobster
Is there any advantage apart from the added detail to using the 1:250,000 chart..
Well it is copyright to the CAA although the topo info is also digitised to CAA specs, topo really isn't the issue. But providing all amendments have been issued (and read) by the user if you fly through a bit of sky the map shows free of all CAS "ipso facto" your clear of any infringment.
In reality, I don’t think you’re going to get the full weight of the law on the back of your neck for drifting marginally inside a bit of airspace but it’s probably better not to offer yourself up as a test case...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is. Look at your half mil map.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practically, I agree with you but for people planning on skirting very close “on the map" do they know what the printing tolerances are? 1:500,000 means half a mile is less than 2mm.
I am with all those who understand and accept that there is a printed boundary and that is definitive, outside it OK, it matters not one jot how close you are. Others at an ATC level may argue you shouldn't but sorry tough thats the line between naughty boy & good boy.
By the same token, do you know the tolerances for the lines on a consol screen which is used for tracking you relative to the map?
My stock phrase is "Don't make it complicated"
Last edited by PA28181; 19th Feb 2015 at 11:07.
Interesting......I don't have one here unfortunately. But is this a VFR corridor, in the sense that you can just fly it that doesn't require a clearance (like the Manchester LLR) or is it a transit that is normally approved.TIA.
Take a look at this - the E/E at each end marks the entry and exit point and definitely requires clearance. Unless they're really busy you're not normally refused.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Is there any advantage apart from the added detail to using the 1:250,000 chart..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 56
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting......I don't have one here unfortunately. But is this a VFR corridor, in the sense that you can just fly it that doesn't require a clearance (like the Manchester LLR) or is it a transit that is normally approved.TIA.
Personally I've never used it. Just call up Luton (usually the same person works Stansted and Luton but different frequencies) and ask for a transit. Again, you may end up having to hold, but they're pretty good.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My stock phrase is "Don't make it complicated"
Some may also argue that overly concentrating on your navigation may remove focus from other, potentially more important, flying tasks. Even relying on your GPS only to keep 'on the line' on a VFR flight in essence makes it into an IFR flight... or at least it means having your head in more than necessary - as an example.
As always in life, just because you *can* does not always mean that you *should*.
B.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do need to read posts carefully, though, my stock phrase was used referring to the posters assertion that the chart printing accuracy could be an issue with flying close to a boundary. It's Not..............................
Quite honestly worrying about "printing tolerances" on the map is a just a bit too pedantic IMHO and really isn't an issue
As for the ANO [AIP] being definitive, yes of course it is, but try taking it with you and navigating with it.
By the same token, do you know the tolerances for the lines on a consol screen which is used for tracking you relative to the map?
All I’m trying to point out is that there are tolerances for everything. If you are using a GPS system with a current database, you can get much closer (should you so wish) to CAS boundaries with reasonable certainty that you will remain clear. Using a printed map and visual navigation introduces much more in the way of possible errors, therefore sensible pilots might elect to fly further away from where they *think* the boundary might be. That’s all.
If ATC decide to file a report on you with a radar plot and the only evidence you have to the contrary is a 1/2mil with a greasy line on it that comes very close to the boundary, it’s going to be difficult mounting much of a defence. I totally agree that a lot of the time, such infringements are dealt with by the way of an apology but why expose yourself to it in the first place? Is it what most pilots would call good airmanship?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I don't accept is you posting a "Quote" from me that YOU have altered. I specifically wrote ANO as that was quoted NOT the AIP to distinguish it from the CAA pub called the AIP. You need to understand the difference.
Yet again you have failed to read the post I keep referring to, which was about map printing accuracy not chinagraph lines drawn on it.
Which one of those do you think the CAA will agree with?
Yet again you have failed to read the post I keep referring to, which was about map printing accuracy not chinagraph lines drawn on it.
If you are using a GPS system with a current database, you can get much closer (should you so wish) to CAS boundaries with reasonable certainty that you will remain clear. Using a printed map and visual navigation introduces much more in the way of possible errors
Which one of those do you think the CAA will agree with?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand to be corrected, but until WAAS is available here (UK Europe?)true accuracy or as near as it can be is not available yet?
The CAA still have not openly approved any handhelds for Nav yet???
The CAA still have not openly approved any handhelds for Nav yet???
Sorry 
, thought you meant AIP and had had a keyboard moment. Why would you want to take the ANO flying with you, just curious...? I know it’s a riveting read but...
As far as navigation goes, the vast majority of CAT and a lot of GA use GPS/database terminal and en-route as ground-based aids are rapidly being deprecated. Personally I use GPS and (when visual) basic nav. so there’s a chance of a gross error in either being spotted before it becomes critical.
As far as the CAA goes, if you had been too reliant on either form, they might question why but a 28-day updated GPS moving map is much more likely to alleviate the need for a little chat with the authority in the first place.
As far as printed map accuracy and navigating by the same, if you add the possible errors from printing to the sort of accuracy you get with visual nav, I think it would be in the order of miles rather than yards. Thus making it sensible to hang back from the perceived boundary a bit?
, thought you meant AIP and had had a keyboard moment. Why would you want to take the ANO flying with you, just curious...? I know it’s a riveting read but...As far as navigation goes, the vast majority of CAT and a lot of GA use GPS/database terminal and en-route as ground-based aids are rapidly being deprecated. Personally I use GPS and (when visual) basic nav. so there’s a chance of a gross error in either being spotted before it becomes critical.
As far as the CAA goes, if you had been too reliant on either form, they might question why but a 28-day updated GPS moving map is much more likely to alleviate the need for a little chat with the authority in the first place.
As far as printed map accuracy and navigating by the same, if you add the possible errors from printing to the sort of accuracy you get with visual nav, I think it would be in the order of miles rather than yards. Thus making it sensible to hang back from the perceived boundary a bit?