Infringements
 

On looking through the latest list of "occurrences" concerning aircraft of 5700kg and below from the CAA, covering in the UK only the five weeks from Sept. 14 to Oct. 21, 2009, I counted a total of 70 infringements: 61 fixed wing, 9 rotary.

Would anyone care to comment?

Sounds about average. Some would say that by getting rid of controlled airspace we could get rid of all the infringements.

Like many other statistics, it looks like they're getting better at recording incidents. I'm sure with Mode-S that we'll see a further increase in infringements. Doesn't mean that there's an increase in actual infringements - simply an increase in the number being reported. :-(

..and as each regional airport operator is looking to get Class D or better around it there is a drive to report infringements, even in the open FIR.

Look at NIA's application and justification, and if they get it, then others with more movements will start doing the same willy-waggling approach.

Looking back at stats that seems about right , but then again how accurate has the reports/recordings of infringements been in the past. I did read with the advent of GPS these numbers have come down

:confused: :confused:

And do you really, really think that reporting infringements is "willy waggling"?

That's a sad indictment of an approach to safety. Talk to any APP controller about the problems that infringements give them and you may understand the problem. In fact, EVERY pilot should at some time or other see what happens at their local LARS provider. They love having people come and see what goes on so we can understand their problems, plus it all helps for better understanding and therefore better safety levels.

I heard one guy today being warned off the LHR zone. His answer? "We're right on the line according to my GPS". :rolleyes:

It was 45 kt winds at 2000'. Why fly that close to the line in conditions like that, let alone in calmer conditions? The arrogance and stupidity defy belief. Give yourself a margin of safety to allow for errors - in your flying, in the GPS equipment, in the data base, in navigation - just give yourself a margin for error.

Maybe that is not the very best example, because prob99.99 he was in the right.

At say 20-30nm from the radar head, a GPS will be about 100x more accurate.

OCAS is OCAS.

I think the willy waving reference was re airports that want Class D to cover the one 737 per day.

Actually I have no problem with CAS - provided one gets a transit when one asks for it. Which is not the case, anywhere in Europe.

What worries me is that of 13 of the infringements were in the Stansted zone and 9 of them were in the new TMZ. I just hope this isn't yet more pressure from NATS/CAA/whoever to grab more Contolled airspace. Could I suggest that all VFR flyers in this area squawk 0013 or talk to Farnborough if they have the kit otherwise the TMZ will expand further.

How do you get hold of the Occurance List please?

Report list
 

Ozbeck - the full repsorts or the GASIL list?

You're thinking old technology. Modern units (of which this is one) use multiple radar heads all feeding the same computer system. Furthermore, the incident happened about 5 miles from the airfield which is home to this LARS unit.

The guy's response was very stroppy and rude - totally unnecessary IMHO.

maxred

I don't know what GASIL stands for (duhh! can't get the staff etc.) - but GA airspace infringements with details if possible, so that I can attempt not to emulate them. Doesn't even have to be up to date.

I looked on the CAA website but could only find occurance submission forms etc. There is so much information on there it is sometimes hard to get what you are after.

Radar itself has not changed much in many years. What has really changed is computer processing of the data. At 5nm it should be pretty good but still not as accurate as a GPS.

I wouldn't have made that comment myself :) Arguing with ATC is totally pointless (except possibly in Spain) and is only going to get their backs up.

A link to latest list of "occurrences" would be most welcome.

the weakest link.....
 

A nice little booklet comes in my post, titled SAFETY DATA OCCURRENCE LISTING. Apparently if you have title to an aircraft, this is automatic, and very educational, I read it cover to cover. And hope never to appear in it.

At the bottom of the page, for Queries and Reporting:
Contact Safety Data, Civil Aviation Authority, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0YR

email: [email protected] fax 01293 573972 tel: 01293 573220

IO540
Yes you may be right that the pilot was on the line on the map. But the point still is valid, a low performance aircraft ( and I include anything that is a light twin or single engine piston in that ) which is operating with those tolerances in the weather conditions stated could very easily enter the airspace before remedial action could be taken. Then were would the pilot be? Is it really that important to excercise your right to fly on the line of CAS when there is no need in poor weather conditions?
If the pilot was a professional or very experienced PPL what example does it set for less experienced pilots?

The radar is accurate enough and in TC its accuracy will be further enhanced fairly soon when all the control positions make use of multi radar tracking.

Stansted rarely gives clearances. The reason they dont is they are under staffed. This creates unnecessary frustration which in part results in unacceptable zone infringements albeit some of these could be avoided if NATS staffed the zone properly.

It use to be possible to report failures to give zone transits - the sooner the CAA encourages GA to file reports and to require zones to file refusals
together with the grounds for refusal the more likley we are too know how much of a contribution to zone infrigments this represents.

I thought the CAA still actively encouraged reporting of refused transits?
Seems only fair that if infringements are to be reported then so should refusals. Sauce for the goose etc.

I would agree that a pilot who can fly accurately (which means a GPS) right on the line is equally capable of doing so a mile out, so flying right on the line is pointless and probably just gets the CAS owner nervous.

But it is possible that you are unaware of just how accurately one can fly today, in a modern IFR plane. I could fly a 900nm route, both ways, and the GPS tracks will be maybe 10m apart. That track log is from a GPS that receives EGNOS so its accuracy is a lot better than 10m. Obviously this is on autopilot.

On a number of occassions I've been warned of being in CAS when I was a couple of miles out, and either the controller was bluffing or his radar was well out. A radar can be pretty good in distance but azimuth accuracy is much harder. I am thinking of Shawbury talking about Birmingham airspace so 30-40nm. I verified the distance to CAS with the ILS DME of the airport too. Plus the 3 GPSs.