Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Surveillance Mandatory Zones if infringements aren't cut

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Surveillance Mandatory Zones if infringements aren't cut

Old 23rd Jun 2015, 19:24
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 37
Posts: 25
Surveillance Mandatory Zones if infringements aren't cut

Looks like CAA are getting very miffed (rightly so) about infringements: http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/newsfeed.php?artnum=2316
Maulkin is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 20:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 64
Posts: 225
Create more airspace and wonder why the Proletariat infringe? How about working out a solution instead?
ak7274 is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 23:02
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,286
And also how about making it a bit less complicated. The drive for years was to cut infringements, whilst loading up more and more CTZ. Also Military Danger Areas are springing up all over the bloody place. Flying is really not what it used to be....
maxred is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 23:33
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,085
Failure to achieve the target could see the future introduction of surveillance mandatory zones (SMZ) to provide a conspicuity buffer around particular hotspot, continued the CAA. The aim of the SMZ will be to provide a ‘known traffic environment’ around the hotspot’s class D airspace. This could lead to a requirement for the mandatory use of radios and/or transponders in that buffer area.
So the solution to infringements is to make the restricted areas bigger?

Sounds like a policy that will encourage even more pilots to fly with their transponders switched off.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2015, 23:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 64
Posts: 1,572
Looking over the GA Occurrence reports it is clear there are a lot on infringements, but it isn't clear how serious they are.

My feeling is that certain airfields have been 'encouraged' to report whereas once upon a time, they didn't

I guess it is a drive to create or extend Class D and avoid the hassle of a full-blown airspace change.

We've seen how quickly a TMZ or RMZ can be created compared to a change of Airspace Class. The SMZ is a natural and cheaper extension of this
robin is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 00:01
  #6 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,446
I suggest that a lot of infringements occur near "choke points" between CAS. The narrower the gap, the more likely pilots are to bust the adjacent airspace.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 00:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,085
We've seen how quickly a TMZ or RMZ can be created compared to a change of Airspace Class. The SMZ is a natural and cheaper extension of this
An SMZ is a TMZ and an RMZ combined.

Just Class D by the back door.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 10:02
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 870
MJ,

An SMZ is a Class D+ !

No need for a transponder to access Class D in Scotland.
xrayalpha is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 10:18
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Radlett
Posts: 115
So the solution to infringements is to make the restricted areas bigger?

Sounds like a policy that will encourage even more pilots to fly with their transponders switched off.


MJ
Sound to me like something Douglas Adams would have thought up.

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich. [...]

"But we have also," continued the management consultant, "run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying on ship's peanut." [...]

"So in order to obviate this problem," he continued, "and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and...er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances.”
londonblue is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 10:57
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,286
Superb Londonblue

There are many that could be related to the airspace philosophy

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.
and

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
maxred is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 12:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,701
I'm having fun with one at the moment - allegedly I climbed into a bit of CTA in speeds and climb rates of which the aeroplane I was flying was incapable, on a sortie where I had no reason to fly that high, whilst mode-S was squawking hex code but not reg. We checked the mode S a few weeks later with the same tower, and they could read reg and hex both - no maintenance done on same box in between.

I pointed out that it probably wasn't me for these reasons, and was subsequently the unhappy recipient of an email suggesting that I was not showing the right attitude and probably needed reporting to CAA for licencing action. Everybody can probably guess, without being told, the tone of my response to that.

I don't dispute that putting big and little aeroplanes in the same place at the same time is a bad thing unless properly controlled, but there's a distinct attitude problem in the airspace allocating community that is as much in need of fixing as anybody's navigation here. Also just possibly the technology isn't quite as good as NATS think it is at detecting these things.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 14:56
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
So they made most of UK airspace Class A, extremely complex, inaccessible to VFR flights and boundaries hard to understand.

And now they are having a go at the pilots?

It's completely embarrassing. We can clearly see what needs simplifying.



Source: SkyDemon
soaringhigh650 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 15:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,113
I pointed out that it probably wasn't me for these reasons, and was subsequently the unhappy recipient of an email suggesting that I was not showing the right attitude and probably needed reporting to CAA for licencing action. Everybody can probably guess, without being told, the tone of my response to that.
Genghis, if that email wasn't from the CAA who was it from? The ATC unit?
flybymike is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 15:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,113
It's completely embarrassing. We can clearly see what needs simplifying.
I hope you made it safely from Cambridge to Worthing in one piece.....
flybymike is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 17:45
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 1,882
Talk about "soaring high"

Looks like he's planned that at FL350...
ETOPS is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 18:24
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
At 7500ft actually which what I use to cruise over New York.

We don't even have airspace 'alerts' here. Using the popular UK Skydemon tool there's about a dozen 'issues' I still have ta sort out.
soaringhigh650 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 19:56
  #17 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,446
Just do it, SH... I'm sure they'll understand; obviously it's just the entire system that's wrong, not you..

P.s. please post pics of the Typhoons on your wingtips.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 24th Jun 2015, 22:39
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,701
Originally Posted by flybymike View Post
Genghis, if that email wasn't from the CAA who was it from? The ATC unit?
NATS.

G


(Random text to meet 10 character minimum).
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2015, 11:36
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dorset, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 346
If you think our airspace is complicated .... have you been to France?
In the good old days they had a very sensible Gallic attitude and no one really minded if one flew through the odd bit of red air ... but now they have AA missiles mounted on the power stations
Romeo Tango is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2015, 13:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 162
@Skydemon picture above: as a software developer I would seriously try to find a line drawing bug when looking at that, as that can't be correct...
Pirke is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.