Slim

I bet you 60% of the violating pilots had GPS.

Don't confuse positive correlation with root cause:} Were they relying on it for primary navigation?

I'm not prepared to make that bet, lol

And most likely, 100% of the violating pilots had no training in the use of GPS whatsoever.

But most people on here seem to be of the view that is how it should be.

Slim_Slang, I'll take your bet. I doubt any of the 4 others were actively using a GPS. Or if they were, that it was a nav error as compared to a planning or understanding issues (some people, believe it or not, don't seem to understand you need a clearance to fly in the TMA or CTR:eek:)


Roffa - The LHR point is probably about the 'large' surface area of the zone vs. US airports - A point that is done to death and not that relevant in discussing why PPLs bust clearly marked (if large) zones.

mm flynn, you're quite right about the clearance bit, but don't confuse the TMA airspace with the CTR airspace.....CTR GL to 2500 feet, TMA, 2500 to FL245.

The western edge is consistent with ensuring traffic descending on the ILS remains inside CAS.

The eastern edge probably isn't going to change.

The northern boundary is consistent with ensuring traffic climbing out of LHR and Northolt on SIDs in to the airways system at the minimum climb gradient remains inside CAS.

Same with the southern boundary for LHR traffic, although there might be leeway bringing it north a bit.

You might be able to trim a mile or two in at the corners but that's about all.

Doesn't seem overly stupid to me.

Pilots will naturally select the shortest route..and will route close to CTR boundaries. The size of EGLL CTR means that an infringer is thankfully spotted and avoided before it becomes a collision threat. Having said that, there are investigations into reducing the CTR boundaries to the East and West of LL in a bid (amongst other things) to give more freedom to White Waltham, Fairoaks and other GA.

I just had to mention that gross navigational errors are as old as aviation!

Anyone heard of "Wrong-way Corrigan"?

Now that's one gross navigational error ;)

SD

This pilot claimed he had "erronously programmed his GPS".

Not really possible with a moving map GPS.

Did the unit he used get looked at?

Or did the "investigators" just take his word for it, rubbed their hands in glee when they heard the 3-letter word, and wrote up the report?

I know a VC-10 navigator who completely missed the UK on the return from the USA! It was caused by programming in 70 degrees of magnetic variation instead of 7 degrees.

OK, so now you have told us why you think the edges are there.

Describe the edges and any corners of the London Surface area so it might be easily understood by somebody in a light aircraft navigating by looking out of the window at the surface. Stupid comes in many varieties.

IO540, has anybody else ever got it right? You know, maybe just the once?

mm_flynn, you need to read my bet properly :ok:

IO540, we are not "Investigators" and neither do we take delight in having to follow these things up. The pilot was simply asked to contact the supervisor. He would've been asked if he'd realised that he had penetrated controlled airspace and, dependant upon his answer, asked to explain the reason for that unauthorised penetration. More often than not, if there was no erosion of separation between aircraft, controllers are reluctant to go into paperwork - we have enough to do as it is. A simple explanation of the airspace and procedures is enough. That said, a lot depends on the pilot's attitude. If he comes out fighting, with an agressive attitude, denying everything, then radar replays and paperwork will undoubtedly follow. We are here to help, educate and provide a safe service to ALL airspace users.:ok:

A17

Slim wrote...

The London Zone is no different than all the other CAS in the UK, why pick on it?

p.s. before mentioning the States, they're not totally perfect either...

http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/...5/050707ca.jpg

Slimslag,
With all due respect, Roffa has told us exactly why the edges are where they are; to provide separation between a/c flying on published instrument procedures (SIDs, ILS etc) and a/c outside controlled airspace.

Sorry, can you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. :confused:

If navigating around the edges of the CTR/TMA is too difficult (which is the impression I'm picking up from your remark above), then a well orchestrated letter-writing to CAA DAP would I'm sure start the process of expanding Class A airspace to make the boundaries more easy to understand whilst flying in a light a/c navigating by looking out the window.....:E

No not perfect - Looks like they have had some help from the UK;).

On a serious note look here (put EWR in on the search) for the more traditional wedding cake structure.

In both airspace designs (LAX and EWR) the amount of CTR is small compared to London and steps up fairly sharpish. Do US jets climb better? Or is it a tighter airspace (possibly with less tolerance for EFOT)?

Much of the irregular shape of UK airspace stems from pressure from various user groups to keep it to the minimum required.

It would be possible no doubt to get more circular as is often the case in the States, but I reckon overall more airspace would be used up in the process.
Cake and eat it, so to speak.

Looking at the NYC airspace, they have smaller surface areas but also shelfs with lower base levels than we'd use here. What significant use a 500ft shelf, or a 1100ft, 1200ft or 1500ft one over a built up area is in an average GA single is debatable but I suppose they can at least say it is there.

whilst I agree that gps should be taught, I very much doubt that, it will ever replace being able to nav via tradition methods, especially during a nav x
At least the student had sense enough to contact D & D
mm flynn's comment, I'm afriad you'd lose your bet, I was informed, that most infringers are cirrus pilots, so, even with all that expensive technology

that most infringers are cirrus pilots

Do you have a reference, TV?

I looked at all of the serious loss of separation infringements last year and NONE were Cirrus. And in the set I looked at, in ALL cases where Navigation was one of the main causes, non-electronic navigation was being used.

Cirrus pilots must just be lucky that they never infringe near anyone else given that they are 'most of the infringers';).

While blind faith in any box of tricks (i.e. GPS) or being a one trick navigator are problems, the lack of acceptance of the vast improvement in situational awareness afforded by panel mounted moving map systems is silly. Maybe commercial pilots should be made to use DR to satisfy their PRNAV requirements any time they are in sight of the surface if navigating using electronics is such a problem:ugh:.

Because its the subject of the thread.

If you want to bring the States into it, take a closer look at that chart you cited of a far busier area than London. There are published VFR routes across the surface area, one of which doesn't even need a call to Tower. The area to the east is also rather small. You also get good radar service from SOCAL, always helps keep the controllers in the loop.

Gonzo, I think there is an argument that CAS might be made a little larger than neccessary in order to make the edges more easily to visualise using surface features. I could cite the PHX surface area, which is busier than LHR and isn't far off the size of LHR, but which I could describe to you by surface feature in the way requested in my request to Roffa. I really don't think that was a difficult concept.

What size surface area is neccessary is a matter for argument, and I don't think LHR controllers have a monopoly in that discussion. Remember, it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it :)

Anyway, it's been done before, and a very helpful LHR controller who quickly demonstrated empathy with the VFR pilot explained it very well last time.

I'm off on hols :)