On Track
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: europe
In case many GA pilots have not yet seen this thread, and particularly the link given to the actual report, I think it deserves more time near the top.
See and be seen, GPS or no GPS, ATC availability or not, these have all been discussed at length, and the report considers all these factors, and is worth a read.
See and be seen, GPS or no GPS, ATC availability or not, these have all been discussed at length, and the report considers all these factors, and is worth a read.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
Nothing particularly startling in the report, the key issue raised is that the GA community will judge the project by what constructive measures come out of it.
Too true, I would if anything will?
Some of the spin-offs have been very useful, the pictorial AIC from DAP for the PFA rally allowed me to reconcile 'the prominent junction' that was supposed to be point 1 on the 26 grass procedure with the mini-roundabout shielded with trees that it actually was.
Perhaps the bigger question is why on earth was that chosen when there were more bigger and less confusing points?
Anyhow all credit to the CAA for setting it up and the OnTrack people for the results. Will we get a statement from the CAA on follow-up? Will there be any? Any bets?
Too true, I would if anything will?
Some of the spin-offs have been very useful, the pictorial AIC from DAP for the PFA rally allowed me to reconcile 'the prominent junction' that was supposed to be point 1 on the 26 grass procedure with the mini-roundabout shielded with trees that it actually was.
Perhaps the bigger question is why on earth was that chosen when there were more bigger and less confusing points?
Anyhow all credit to the CAA for setting it up and the OnTrack people for the results. Will we get a statement from the CAA on follow-up? Will there be any? Any bets?
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
From: Hants
Mike
Thanks for the link to Gasil. As a student, and non-owner I obviously don't get my own copy. I sometimes see one in the pile of mags at my school, but it seems I never have the time to read there, as there is always other things to read (like Flying Orders, POH's).
About to plough through the OnTrack, so no comments there.
Rich
Thanks for the link to Gasil. As a student, and non-owner I obviously don't get my own copy. I sometimes see one in the pile of mags at my school, but it seems I never have the time to read there, as there is always other things to read (like Flying Orders, POH's).
About to plough through the OnTrack, so no comments there.
Rich
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
From: Smurph Castle
Read the report last night - extremely interesting and a very worthy project. Certainly got me thinking, and as a newly qualified PPL, I'm exactly the person they want to be reaching. I have forwarded the link to some aviation friends of mine and hope there will be other opportunities to 'get involved' now.
BTW, I know it's a pressing issue, but I was surprised at just how large the proportion of incidents were attributed to using GPS ineffectively.
BTW, I know it's a pressing issue, but I was surprised at just how large the proportion of incidents were attributed to using GPS ineffectively.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
Rich,
You can add yourself to the distribution even if you are not an owner. It costs Ł12 per year for GASIL and GASCo together and they are sent to you on the publication date. The people to talk to are General Aviation Department (GAD) Admin at CAA Gatwick on 01293 573503. Although if you have access to a printer and the internet then it saves this cost I suppose.
Andy
You can add yourself to the distribution even if you are not an owner. It costs Ł12 per year for GASIL and GASCo together and they are sent to you on the publication date. The people to talk to are General Aviation Department (GAD) Admin at CAA Gatwick on 01293 573503. Although if you have access to a printer and the internet then it saves this cost I suppose.
Andy
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
Thanks everyone for your comments here - glad to see the report is being widely read and well received.
We're really very pleased there are not too many surprises for you in the recommendations, as our aim was to transmit your ideas and opinions on how to improve the system. (Not by the way to evaluate them or place them in some sort of league - just to report what you at the sharp end are thinking).
Many of the recommendations had not reached the system until now - not formally anyway - and this is an excellent piece of customer feedback, which we hope will continue.
OK we didn't reach everyone - we knew it would be difficult - but 32000 individual letters to PPL holders and thousands of posters to Clubs and ATC Units + Media Articles did get a very good level of response.
If you've not seen the website it's still there at
www.flyontrack.co.uk
and of course we're keen to receive any feedback on the report, as the website is still being monitored by us and the CAA - your comment will still register where it matters!!
We'll keep you posted.
Dave
We're really very pleased there are not too many surprises for you in the recommendations, as our aim was to transmit your ideas and opinions on how to improve the system. (Not by the way to evaluate them or place them in some sort of league - just to report what you at the sharp end are thinking).
Many of the recommendations had not reached the system until now - not formally anyway - and this is an excellent piece of customer feedback, which we hope will continue.
OK we didn't reach everyone - we knew it would be difficult - but 32000 individual letters to PPL holders and thousands of posters to Clubs and ATC Units + Media Articles did get a very good level of response.
If you've not seen the website it's still there at
www.flyontrack.co.uk
and of course we're keen to receive any feedback on the report, as the website is still being monitored by us and the CAA - your comment will still register where it matters!!
We'll keep you posted.
Dave
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
I have just read the report and focused specifically on the issue of Pre-Flight Information Bulletins (PIB) and in particular to recent introduction of the AES tool which offers web access to the ADIMS database. The now infamous web tool was introduced last year and several issue were raised with the rollout. These have now been honestly accepted by NATS AIS management.
There is still ongoing work in order to increase the intuitive nature of the AES tool and perhaps even provide an output in a format to enable users to devise their own systems for selecting, sorting and display of data. It is heartening to read that this work gains support from Paragraph 7.5, Problem Statement 4.
Also noted is the pragmatic council that plain English be used. NATS/AIS to a certain degree have their hands tied by ICAO SARPS Annex 15. Notwithstanding this, further work could be done to provide a better visual output and presentation of the NOTAM data.
We are clearly reminded as stated paragraph 7.5 “…many GA pilots report flying without a pre-flight NOTAM brief, significantly increasing the risk of infringements”. Without delving into the ANO legalities of flying without proper pre-flight planning, this statement is true in the practical real world. It is better to address this through training and awareness along with intuitive tools than to rely on any legal instrument to increase effective pre-flight planning.
With a consolidated effort by the GA community to raise awareness of the correct use of the existing web tool, coupled with help from NATS AIS Management and IS team in agreement with the CAA an acceptable intuitive graphical method could be introduced either by NATS/AIS or perhaps via third party under licence if necessary to reduce the workload in obtaining and displaying PIB NOTAM information.
The report supports the current work and the future actions and this can only be a good thing as far as the PIB/NOTAM issue is concerned. I will be interested to hear about the results of the AIWG review and any resulting actions agreed.
There is still ongoing work in order to increase the intuitive nature of the AES tool and perhaps even provide an output in a format to enable users to devise their own systems for selecting, sorting and display of data. It is heartening to read that this work gains support from Paragraph 7.5, Problem Statement 4.
Also noted is the pragmatic council that plain English be used. NATS/AIS to a certain degree have their hands tied by ICAO SARPS Annex 15. Notwithstanding this, further work could be done to provide a better visual output and presentation of the NOTAM data.
We are clearly reminded as stated paragraph 7.5 “…many GA pilots report flying without a pre-flight NOTAM brief, significantly increasing the risk of infringements”. Without delving into the ANO legalities of flying without proper pre-flight planning, this statement is true in the practical real world. It is better to address this through training and awareness along with intuitive tools than to rely on any legal instrument to increase effective pre-flight planning.
With a consolidated effort by the GA community to raise awareness of the correct use of the existing web tool, coupled with help from NATS AIS Management and IS team in agreement with the CAA an acceptable intuitive graphical method could be introduced either by NATS/AIS or perhaps via third party under licence if necessary to reduce the workload in obtaining and displaying PIB NOTAM information.
The report supports the current work and the future actions and this can only be a good thing as far as the PIB/NOTAM issue is concerned. I will be interested to hear about the results of the AIWG review and any resulting actions agreed.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
From: Dorset
Andrew Sinclair / Evo - I think that you will get much better response from Fly on Track by using their Web site / reporting mechanism. AIUI, they are not allowed / do not wish [delete as applicable] to enter into the debate on PPRuNe, but will monitor this kind of thread. As Flyontrack said, please use their Web link to provide feedback.
This isn't meant to be a pompous / 'I told you so' posting - this is to try to ensure that other people who haven't monitored previous threads on this subject don't use this as the primary feedback forum to Fly on Track.
Flyontrack - I suppose I'd best go & read your report now ....
This isn't meant to be a pompous / 'I told you so' posting - this is to try to ensure that other people who haven't monitored previous threads on this subject don't use this as the primary feedback forum to Fly on Track.
Flyontrack - I suppose I'd best go & read your report now ....
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks for the thought Circuit Basher, like most I have been using the website and monitoring it over a period of time. My post was intended for PPRuNe and I will give a fuller reponse on the flyontrack website when I have read the report thoroughly again.
The reason I wanted to post here was because after discussion with Phil Bate of AIS last month, his organisation are keen to monitor feedback from all different forum tools so I tend to use PPRuNe and other sites for this purpose to prompt conversation amongst people who use this site especially where it concerns PIB and NOTAM. I use any opportunity to keep the PIB/NOTAM issues high on the GA forum agenda! This should in no way detract from the primary feedback tool as you correctly mention.
Regards
Andy
P.S. I didn't take your post to be pompous in any way, you were not aware of what was in my mind when posting and your point is very valid.
The reason I wanted to post here was because after discussion with Phil Bate of AIS last month, his organisation are keen to monitor feedback from all different forum tools so I tend to use PPRuNe and other sites for this purpose to prompt conversation amongst people who use this site especially where it concerns PIB and NOTAM. I use any opportunity to keep the PIB/NOTAM issues high on the GA forum agenda! This should in no way detract from the primary feedback tool as you correctly mention.
Regards
Andy
P.S. I didn't take your post to be pompous in any way, you were not aware of what was in my mind when posting and your point is very valid.
Last edited by Andrew Sinclair; 18th July 2003 at 22:16.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
Thanks for the plug Circuit Basher - hope you agree with the report!
You're right that we like to see feedback on our website as we know the CAA monitor the responses and direct access is then achieved to some departments who may be able to take an issue on board.
To answer the obvious question - what next? - the report will now be considered by the Airspace Infringement Working Group (AIWG) at the CAA. Various GA groups will be represented, and their aim is "to implement as many recommendations as possible" to quote the Press Release.
I don't yet know how you will be able to monitor progress, but many have brought this up, and we will be suggesting some form of regular update via the website after each AIWG meeting.
Certainly it would pay to keep a weather eye on our website!
Dave E & Mike N
You're right that we like to see feedback on our website as we know the CAA monitor the responses and direct access is then achieved to some departments who may be able to take an issue on board.
To answer the obvious question - what next? - the report will now be considered by the Airspace Infringement Working Group (AIWG) at the CAA. Various GA groups will be represented, and their aim is "to implement as many recommendations as possible" to quote the Press Release.
I don't yet know how you will be able to monitor progress, but many have brought this up, and we will be suggesting some form of regular update via the website after each AIWG meeting.
Certainly it would pay to keep a weather eye on our website!
Dave E & Mike N
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: UK
Just a quick read and its clear that the authors have no understanding of the limitations of transponder codes and what effect their ideas could have on civil ATC Radars.
At first glance it looks as though it was written by amateurs who simply failed to grasp their brief.
Sorry guys ; do better next time.
At first glance it looks as though it was written by amateurs who simply failed to grasp their brief.
Sorry guys ; do better next time.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
From: UK
I too have had just a quick glance and need a full indepth look , however to me there are many good ideas there.
Yes they need to be studied in depth but that is the basis of these recommendations to present them and for them to be analysed and to look at the practical implications of implementation.
Without a doubt we can always do with a fresh perspective on what we do, we can get all to easily entrenched in this is how we have always done it.
Yes they need to be studied in depth but that is the basis of these recommendations to present them and for them to be analysed and to look at the practical implications of implementation.
Without a doubt we can always do with a fresh perspective on what we do, we can get all to easily entrenched in this is how we have always done it.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hello hatsoff,
Could you post an example of what you mean concerning the transponder codes and the effect on Civil ATC Radar. I am not as experienced at looking at things from the ATC point-of-view as you are and any specific example would help.
Thanks
Andy
Could you post an example of what you mean concerning the transponder codes and the effect on Civil ATC Radar. I am not as experienced at looking at things from the ATC point-of-view as you are and any specific example would help.
Thanks
Andy
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Sussex
Thanks for the feedback hatsoff – disappointed that you take a negative view of the report based on “a quick read and a first glance”.
If you read the report more closely you will see we have fully understood our brief, part of which was to find out what the operators wanted (not “our” ideas as you misunderstood), and translate the result into a structured set of recommendations.
We were not tasked to evaluate the feedback, other than to weed out obviously frivolous elements – not much of that appeared as it happens – the AIWG will assess the practicality of each recommendation.
As experienced professionals, we are aware of technical difficulties with transponder code allocation, but modern technology moves very rapidly and there may well be a fix available when the practicality of any changes are examined.
Incidentally, we did expect some reluctance to embrace change from some quarters, hence the caveat in the report:
“From the outset, it was recognised that pilots cause most infringements. The solution must therefore include pilot input, which may demand radical rethinking of existing views or procedures. If the safety benefits of the project are to be realised, it is essential that the recommendations and suggestions should be viewed with an open mind, without automatically restating existing procedures which may not be delivering the required safety standards.”
Oh, by the way the transponder suggestion was one of many received from ATCOs.
If you read the report more closely you will see we have fully understood our brief, part of which was to find out what the operators wanted (not “our” ideas as you misunderstood), and translate the result into a structured set of recommendations.
We were not tasked to evaluate the feedback, other than to weed out obviously frivolous elements – not much of that appeared as it happens – the AIWG will assess the practicality of each recommendation.
As experienced professionals, we are aware of technical difficulties with transponder code allocation, but modern technology moves very rapidly and there may well be a fix available when the practicality of any changes are examined.
Incidentally, we did expect some reluctance to embrace change from some quarters, hence the caveat in the report:
“From the outset, it was recognised that pilots cause most infringements. The solution must therefore include pilot input, which may demand radical rethinking of existing views or procedures. If the safety benefits of the project are to be realised, it is essential that the recommendations and suggestions should be viewed with an open mind, without automatically restating existing procedures which may not be delivering the required safety standards.”
Oh, by the way the transponder suggestion was one of many received from ATCOs.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
I second you there Rustle. I have had a good read through now and a far better understanding of the issues. I believe that hatsoff is an ATCO, hence my request to expand their initial thoughts to get a useful insight. They may not have been back to the board yet so might come back or perhaps post direct to the Fly On Track as was advised by an earlier poster.
I am interested to see what the AIWG decide is practical from the recommendations that the team made.
I am interested to see what the AIWG decide is practical from the recommendations that the team made.
Last edited by Andrew Sinclair; 21st July 2003 at 01:00.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
From: UK
Radical Change is hard for all, but we need to be thinking in a different way. Aviation needs to be pushed along not just stagnate. We have come up with major changes at my unit to accomodate different traffic situations, yes there has been some resistance but all realise that changes have to be made.
The issue of transponder codes and LARS services is a case in point, I hope that we will also look closely at how other countries provide services to GA aircraft and maybe we can come up with some fairly decent solutions.
There are some who feel that ATC are anti GA that simply isn't true, we need to work together though and stop confronting each other. Look at each others difficulties and realise that unfortunately we will not get a perfect solution but try hard to achieve a damn good one.
The issue of transponder codes and LARS services is a case in point, I hope that we will also look closely at how other countries provide services to GA aircraft and maybe we can come up with some fairly decent solutions.
There are some who feel that ATC are anti GA that simply isn't true, we need to work together though and stop confronting each other. Look at each others difficulties and realise that unfortunately we will not get a perfect solution but try hard to achieve a damn good one.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: UK
Perhaps I wasn't being very fair after just a quick read through so here goes with my initial thoughts on that one aspect.
Transponder codes are limited by physics.
Already we find that during busy spells we run out of codes so allocating them to GA needs to be planned carefully and on a European Basis...this is not a National Issue.
In the old days I could filter out code 7000 leaving my airways traffic quite visable.
New rules mean that I'm not allowed to and on fine weekends we frequently find all those 7000 GA squawks under the Daventry Arrea obscuring airways traffic and often causing garbling.
The use of TCAS means that GA traffic without Mode C may appear as a conflict to airways traffic well above. Nonetheless , the Commercial Pilot is spooked and we find ourselves entering a narrative on what may be causing the spurious conflict.
GA traffic with wrongly reading mode C can cause havoc as we have to treat the traffic as a potential risk until we can formally identify it.
As a side issue please squawk Lost or call for help if you're uncertain of your position. We really appreciate it if you do your best to get out a problem quickly.
I don't know of any of my colleagues that would take any action against you if you made a reasonable effort to avoid infringeing Controlled Airspace. None of us is perfect
Transponder codes are limited by physics.
Already we find that during busy spells we run out of codes so allocating them to GA needs to be planned carefully and on a European Basis...this is not a National Issue.
In the old days I could filter out code 7000 leaving my airways traffic quite visable.
New rules mean that I'm not allowed to and on fine weekends we frequently find all those 7000 GA squawks under the Daventry Arrea obscuring airways traffic and often causing garbling.
The use of TCAS means that GA traffic without Mode C may appear as a conflict to airways traffic well above. Nonetheless , the Commercial Pilot is spooked and we find ourselves entering a narrative on what may be causing the spurious conflict.
GA traffic with wrongly reading mode C can cause havoc as we have to treat the traffic as a potential risk until we can formally identify it.
As a side issue please squawk Lost or call for help if you're uncertain of your position. We really appreciate it if you do your best to get out a problem quickly.
I don't know of any of my colleagues that would take any action against you if you made a reasonable effort to avoid infringeing Controlled Airspace. None of us is perfect