Solent Collaborative Airspace Trial
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 65
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much effect this will have.
Some people will not comply and it seems are reluctant to participate in attempts to reduce infringements. I don't understand why.
Yes the PIC is the only person responsible for an infringement. But if I'm going past a zone with a listening squawk available I will always select it and listen out, even if I don't want a service. If I'm about to infringe I will be very grateful if a controller has time to tell me.
But look at the size of those buffer zones. They are so small you can be through them in moments.
Looking at the statistics of those who infringe. It seems over 99% of people are NOT using GPS. Its not the man in a simple no electrics plane flying for a local bimble. The main infringes are those using maps and/or VOR's or being distracted. I do wish they would at LEAST invest in AND USE some of the excellent and very cheap GPS units that will warn them of infringements. I think thats the way to cut down on infringements.
IMHO every plane should have at least an AWARE unit running and being monitored. (with the possible exception of the farm strippers who are just having a bimble)
Some people will not comply and it seems are reluctant to participate in attempts to reduce infringements. I don't understand why.
Yes the PIC is the only person responsible for an infringement. But if I'm going past a zone with a listening squawk available I will always select it and listen out, even if I don't want a service. If I'm about to infringe I will be very grateful if a controller has time to tell me.
But look at the size of those buffer zones. They are so small you can be through them in moments.
Looking at the statistics of those who infringe. It seems over 99% of people are NOT using GPS. Its not the man in a simple no electrics plane flying for a local bimble. The main infringes are those using maps and/or VOR's or being distracted. I do wish they would at LEAST invest in AND USE some of the excellent and very cheap GPS units that will warn them of infringements. I think thats the way to cut down on infringements.
IMHO every plane should have at least an AWARE unit running and being monitored. (with the possible exception of the farm strippers who are just having a bimble)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But look at the size of those buffer zones
If they want to make the CTR bigger then let them go ahead and do so, and then at least we will all know what we are arguing about.
The fitting and use of GPS needs to be made mandatory. How do you compel its use ? Wire it unswitched in to the a/c electrical loom. I loathe compulsion in any form but, sometimes the stakes are too high, making such necessary.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you draw the line? Should all non-radio aircraft be banned, then? I don't deny that a basic service can be a bonus; however sometimes there is simply nothing wrong with not talking to anyone in Class G.
By your logic, we should all be getting a Deconfliction service, all the time. Safer, right?
By your logic, we should all be getting a Deconfliction service, all the time. Safer, right?
Non radio aircraft or non transponding aircraft should not be banned but if your aeroplane is fitted with the equipment then use it!?
Talking to an ATC unit does not increase the workload in the cockpit and will also give you extra peace of mind in the event of loss or confusion of position (which are 2 of the main reasons for infringements)
You clearly don't agree with me but I again pose the question - if you have a radio and a transponder, why wouldn't you use them?!
There is little added value as long as there is not a one to one relation between any defined spot in airspace and a corresponding service/frequency.
While I must admit being not very well acquainted with the UK situation, I understand from the www that several planes may be flying quite close to another, all in class G, each listening and perhaps even occasionally transmitting, but on different frequencies. So they may well be communicating for all they are worth, respecting every rule, yet be on a collision course without anybody warning them. If I've got that right, it means R/T has little worth, OCAS.
While I must admit being not very well acquainted with the UK situation, I understand from the www that several planes may be flying quite close to another, all in class G, each listening and perhaps even occasionally transmitting, but on different frequencies. So they may well be communicating for all they are worth, respecting every rule, yet be on a collision course without anybody warning them. If I've got that right, it means R/T has little worth, OCAS.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: in front of comptator :-)
Age: 65
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is little added value as long as there is not a one to one relation between any defined spot in airspace and a corresponding service/frequency.
While I must admit being not very well acquainted with the UK situation, I understand from the www that several planes may be flying quite close to another, all in class G, each listening and perhaps even occasionally transmitting, but on different frequencies. So they may well be communicating for all they are worth, respecting every rule, yet be on a collision course without anybody warning them. If I've got that right, it means R/T has little worth, OCAS.
While I must admit being not very well acquainted with the UK situation, I understand from the www that several planes may be flying quite close to another, all in class G, each listening and perhaps even occasionally transmitting, but on different frequencies. So they may well be communicating for all they are worth, respecting every rule, yet be on a collision course without anybody warning them. If I've got that right, it means R/T has little worth, OCAS.
HOWEVER. If a pilot is worried about traffic he can just ask for a traffic service. Simples.
Usually if you sound competent on the radio you will get a traffic service (I have never been refused).(Hope that comes over as a simple and helpful comment.
If you see what I mean.)EDIt to ADD : I've had the situation that I have not been warned about non talking traffic as well. But thats not a UK problem, I've had it the other side of the channel as well.
Thread Starter
According to the AIC the Solent Collaborative Airspace Tril is now operative. However it doesn't appear on any maps or on SkyDemon. How on earth are we going to comply with this?
Professional Student
destinationsky.
I am well aware of the benefits of the various levels of service. My point is that, sometimes, it's just nice to turn of the radio and go for a nice summer's evening bimble. This is permissible, you know
(ever flown a Super Cub with the door open?).
You are responsible for navigation - not ATC. If you think you can navigate safety, without RT, and not infringe, on a clear summer eve, in good weather, with a chart and GPS, over an area you know well, you are allowed to make this choice in the airspace as it is now. You will have to face the consequences of your decisions, however in these circumstances I would be quite happy to do so, given my experience levels. Others may chose to do otherwise, as is their privilege. Yes, ATC may stop you infringing if you cock up; but under certain circumstances the risk is minimal.
Solent/Bournemouth CAS is such that flying from nearby airfields and around it, you could be termed almost always "near controlled airspace", btw.
To add context; I have been flying in and around Solent, in both a private and commercial capacity, for over 10 years. I know the area very well. To guard against human error, I also have a moving map GPS. To my mind, in the above scenario, I am happy - as the responsible commander of the aircraft, - with my navigational skills. To add further context; if I was flying in poor weather, in IMC, near CAS, I'd get a traffic service and talk. If I was flying the work machine, at faster speeds in and out of IMC where see and avoid is much tricker, I'd be on a deconfliction service outside.
The Basic Service, by the way, is IMHO of very limited value on the classic sunny weekend summers day when every bugger is calling up (with poor and over long RT on a fair few calls) for transits and BS. You'll not get traffic information; apart from an alerting service, you'll not recieve much of use. In those circumstances, I'd use the listening squawk. And, y'know, look out...
Incidentally, I agree that a transponder, if fitted, should always be used in ALT mode, as TCAS equipped aircraft and also radar units will derive clear safety benefits. My original point was that the uncontrolled airspace near Solent is not yet a RMZ; you are allowed to weight the options, risks, threats and arrive at a responsible choice. One responsible choice is, surprisingly, non-radio......
I am well aware of the benefits of the various levels of service. My point is that, sometimes, it's just nice to turn of the radio and go for a nice summer's evening bimble. This is permissible, you know
(ever flown a Super Cub with the door open?). You are responsible for navigation - not ATC. If you think you can navigate safety, without RT, and not infringe, on a clear summer eve, in good weather, with a chart and GPS, over an area you know well, you are allowed to make this choice in the airspace as it is now. You will have to face the consequences of your decisions, however in these circumstances I would be quite happy to do so, given my experience levels. Others may chose to do otherwise, as is their privilege. Yes, ATC may stop you infringing if you cock up; but under certain circumstances the risk is minimal.
Solent/Bournemouth CAS is such that flying from nearby airfields and around it, you could be termed almost always "near controlled airspace", btw.
To add context; I have been flying in and around Solent, in both a private and commercial capacity, for over 10 years. I know the area very well. To guard against human error, I also have a moving map GPS. To my mind, in the above scenario, I am happy - as the responsible commander of the aircraft, - with my navigational skills. To add further context; if I was flying in poor weather, in IMC, near CAS, I'd get a traffic service and talk. If I was flying the work machine, at faster speeds in and out of IMC where see and avoid is much tricker, I'd be on a deconfliction service outside.
The Basic Service, by the way, is IMHO of very limited value on the classic sunny weekend summers day when every bugger is calling up (with poor and over long RT on a fair few calls) for transits and BS. You'll not get traffic information; apart from an alerting service, you'll not recieve much of use. In those circumstances, I'd use the listening squawk. And, y'know, look out...
Incidentally, I agree that a transponder, if fitted, should always be used in ALT mode, as TCAS equipped aircraft and also radar units will derive clear safety benefits. My original point was that the uncontrolled airspace near Solent is not yet a RMZ; you are allowed to weight the options, risks, threats and arrive at a responsible choice. One responsible choice is, surprisingly, non-radio......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew down Solent today. Solent were unreachable as they were far too busy. Nearly got taken out by an X-Air Hawk not transponding or talking to either Solent or Bournemouth.
Don't think the new arrangments can be in place as yet
Don't think the new arrangments can be in place as yet
Do you really think it is going to make much difference when it is in place? I know a lot of pilots who frequently use the Stoney Cross/Bealieu leg and most of them, including myself, have always listened out to Bournemouth rather than Solent. In my experience there is not a high probability of either service warning you of other traffic but Bournemouth would be a better bet. On a visit to their Tower I asked who I should listen to and they said either would do but please don't fly close to the Bournemouth boundary at 1900' (legal) in a westerly as it stops them using the ILS for 26.
Oddly, the only infringement I know anything about in that area was due to distraction which was partly contributed to by Bournemouth unexpectedly requesting the pilot to change to Solent as he was getting closer to their boundary.
Oddly, the only infringement I know anything about in that area was due to distraction which was partly contributed to by Bournemouth unexpectedly requesting the pilot to change to Solent as he was getting closer to their boundary.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back in the real world
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q) egtt/qaexx/iv/nbo/ae/000/065/5050n00132w023
b) from: 16/09/26 16:30c) to: 16/10/16 23:59
e) withdraw aic y 061/2016, sfc/fl065. Collaborative airspace trial in
the vcy of the southampton ctr and solent cta has been terminated.
2016-07-0060/as6
b) from: 16/09/26 16:30c) to: 16/10/16 23:59
e) withdraw aic y 061/2016, sfc/fl065. Collaborative airspace trial in
the vcy of the southampton ctr and solent cta has been terminated.
2016-07-0060/as6
