Who was right?
 

I had an interesting experiance today flying down to Denham. routing southbound took me and a 2nd aircraft in formation overhead DTY and then out bound from DTY one the 155 radial to Chalfont St Giles which is the Denham 06 VRP. Altitude on 1019 was 2900ft.

Called Luton for a FIS who were far t"o busy" on a quiet frequency to respond for several minutes. We continued onwards clear of controlled airspace until several minutes later given a FIS and told to remain clear. Overhead Chivory we were told by Luton that we had infringed their airpspace laterally and were given a transponder code. I asked them to clarfiy the infringement and was told that we had entered the 2500-3500ft zone and to call them on the ground.

On landing I viewed the trails from the GPS carried in the 2 aircraft and both sets of GPS show us overhead Chivory which we visually confirmed then overhead Gore then overhead Chalfont St Giles. We were VFR nav with flight planned on the map using the DTY VOR and 2 sets of GPS as backup one of once was an IFR fit GNS 430 and the other a 296 (both aircraft have an identical fit). All 4 sources of navigation agreed.

I spoke to the controller who wanted me to back down and apologise and basically tried to black mail me by saying that the only way to prove who was right was by requesting the radar trace and the only way he could do that was by filing a complaint. I spoke to his supervisor in the end who said that perhaps we should agree to disagree and leave it at that. After telling me that as a pilot I should have left several miles of space between us and controlled airspace and that the frequently vector jets to the edge of the control.

So I have a couple of qustions:

Is controlled airspace now in fact several miles bigger than that shown on our maps?

If I should have given several miles clearance then should they be vectoring jets to the limit if the same airspace?

Are we not all equal users of airspace and supposed to have equal access?

Why would the controller be so adamant that we had bust his zone when according to the route planned and flown and proven on the GPS we were clear of controlled airspace.

It is liitle wonder there is so much animosity between pilots and controllers and the need for seminars such as the upcoming event at Teeside.

This has left me with a very bitter taste and has destroyed the goodwill I have always felt towards Luton controllers.

Comments please!

That sounds like a very weird encounter. I can certainly see why it would leave a bitter taste.

Two thoughts come to mind.

1. I'm not familiar with the airspace there. Is it possible it has been recently changed, since the last map revision, and since your last gps update?

2. What were you squwaking? was it 7000? Is so, it's possible the controller mistook another aircraft for you.

That's about all that I can think of!

dp

7000 on the transponder with mode C, there was in fact 2 other aircraft that crossed our nose right to left and I did ask the controller on the phone if he had seen them and the response was silence.

no changes to airpspace or maps and my GPS and the CAA map agree with each other.

on the phone the controller said he was busy with a runway change. High workload I can sympathise with but to accuse us of something we clearly did not do is inexcusable.

I am the first to stick my hand up when I do do wrong and about 800hrs or so ago I did impinge birminghams airpspace by 100ft on a night flight. I called and apologised and made sure I never repeated the mistake.

Do not accept the ATC allegation. Slippage of his picture was entirely possible and in any case he was probably using secondary or processed-primary returns. He should aim to keep all the a/c under his control well inside his airspace (I think it's 3 miles?) - and you have every right to fly up to 1 molecule from his precious CTA....

He should withdraw his libellous statements.

ATCO, TWATCO! Idiots like him do not help Flight Safety in any way whatsoever.

I hate confrontations, however I think you should take this further.

I had a similar encounter with East Mids several years ago and was told to phone them when I had landed, turned out I got an apology but at least my mind was at rest and the problem solved.

You need to sort it out for your own sake and others ! it made me feel a right *** at the time :confused:

Best of luck with it BX

A couple of points. Firstly I can't find "Chivory" or "Gore" although I have found a hamlet called Chivery SW of Luton near Wendover which lies on a direct track from DTY to the Chalfont St Giles VRP.

Below is an excerpt from the OS 1:50000 in the area of the SW corner of the relevant bit of airspace.
The blue line is the direct track from DTY to the VRP, both of which were plotted using the co-ordinates from the AIP.
The red line marked the boundary of the airspace, again plotted using the figures from the AIP.

Assuming you flew the direct track with absolute accuracy then you would appear to have been just inside the airspace. However, the airspace immediately to the SE of this box is LTMA from 2500+ so assuming you went under this (you did didn't you! :)) you would already been below the disputed airspace for the second or two that you within its lateral limits.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jodel/photos/LTN.JPG

Beagle me old mucker

Hardly a nice reasoned response mate.

A luton controller (not the one involved) has responded to bose-x in the Flyer forum offering all the help he can.

As for keeping inside CAS by three miles then I am sorry but that is not always possible. Take the London City zone as an example.

Images shown below are screen shots from the GPS which records track. FLap 40 your plotting is pretty accurate and would agree with the GPS trace other than the fact that we were the west side of your blue line and yes at that point we were already at 1500ft ready to go into the Denham ATZ.

If we had gone steaming through the Luton Zone it would be understandable but the trace shows we were clear, the VOR tradck took us clear and looking out the windows and identifying the town below us took is clear.

Also as pointed out there has been a positive response from Luton on the flyer forum and I am happy to discuss this to educate all.

http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton2.bmp

http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton.bmp



http://http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton2.bmp

http://http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton.bmp

Clearly lessons for everybody here - why not file a CHIRP report?

G

Do a search ... the phrase TWATCO appears regularly when BEagle is discussing ATC. Maybe one of us stole his girlfriend or something in years past ;)

Slippage ? Now how does that happen ? It's not like we use a Flight Management System to determine radar head position and so could suffer map slip, nor do ATC units move around (ships and rigs excepted ... and maybe Amsterdam Tower in high winds by a few feet !!).

Processed returns might cause a slight difference in indicated radar postion by up to 0.1NM, especially with track smoothing in operation, but if you were flying in a straight line this effect is unlikely.


I think the path offered on the Flyer Forum is the best course of action in your case. If it had been a 'bang to rights' infringement then I suspect Luton would have filed a CA939 (Breach of Legislation). The fact they have not done so means there is probably not proof beyond reasonable doubt that any alleged infringer was actually you.

Which is kind of my point! As you can see from the screen shot we were clear which should grant "reasonable doubt".

So I am asking myself why I have a plaster covering my new Arse%le ripped by a Luton control?????

We did not go sailing through the zone on a self destruct mission we followed a carefully planned flight and have taken a beating for it.

If I had a doubt in my mind then I would have kept my gob shut and bit the bullet.

As a piece of advice, it is always best to ask to talk with the Supervisor in the first instance. The controller involved will not have an unbiased opinion and, depending on what they percieved to have happened, might be a bit prickly since not all ATCOs have attended diplomacy school yet ;)

The supervisor should already have heard the ATCOs side of the story, he will know the various rules and procedures which are pertinent, and he can then listen to your side of the story and hopefully come to a balanced judgement. He will also be aware of the various follow up actions which can be taken depending upon how he feels the 'incident' needs to be closed.

And in spite of what the ATCO told you, tapes can be pulled for a 'look see' without any reporting action ever being taken. The only constraint will be that some units don't have the ability to instantly replay them in cases like this and will have to wait till the data tape is changed on the recorder, which could be up to 24 hours away. Some bigger units have instant digital data replay available (OK, by instant I mean once the engineers have set it up .. so probably 30 mins in reality for a non urgent replay). It's always worth asking them to have a look in cases such as yours, particularly if you have been 'reamed' by ATC about it.

Hopefully TC-LTN can find out exactly what the radar picture showed, and if there is big discrepency between your reported track and that shown on the radar, then I am sure the radar mapping and track correlation can be checked for accuracy and a definitive answer on the 'infringement' given.

Looking at the scale on the GPS screen and the track projected it seems that you have a lot of confidence in GARMIN's ability to plot CAS accurately in the UK.

If, I repeat IF, the controller is proved to be absolutely out of order, would some of you ATC guys tell us what may happen to him? In every walk of life there are problem types but they need to be weeded out or educated in better ways. Would that happen in ATC?

That what I love about you frank always ready to see me in the wrong. As I stated right at the start the GPS was a backup up to conventional navigation which was a radial from the DTY VOR and good old looking out the window with a map on my lap. Thye airspace in the GPS is matched to that on the map correctly.

We were not using GPS to skirt around the edge of CAS and for reference the point where I track came closest to the Luton space is where Luton joinst the LTMA and we were already at 1500 by tha point. Our allegded infringement was supposed to have been further up the zone.

I was very impressed with Luton's proposals to investigate this further in another place. This is exactly the co-operation that should exist between pilot's and controllers - well done!

Reading the reports in GASIL it seems to me formal reports only tend to be made when the infringement is blatant?

Notwithstanding the comment by the ATCO that aircraft are vectored to the limit of controlled airspace I find it very difficult to justify how or why the ATCO should apparently have taken such an aggresive line. It seems to me it should have been quite clear to him that the pilot knew exactly what he was doing. I am sure if I "had my eye" on an aircraft that was clearly flying very close to the edge of controlled airspace on a roughly parallel course I would be pretty confident that the pilot was navigating very accurately. (I accept there is always the possibility the pilot might make a completley unexpected turn into controlled airspace.)

Whislt I appreciate controllers do not always have time I have been very impressed at how often I have heard something along the lines "if you continue on your current course (at cuurent height) you will infringe controlled airspace at". That avoids on the whole the problem ever occuring in the first place.

I totally agree with the posting of this thread and I think we will all find the outcome informative.

Not always true old chap. I have been involved in CAA legal action even though the pilot was unaware he was over BUR heading South East at 2400 - thinking he was in the CPT area aiming for Fairoaks.

Not exactly blatant but costly all the same. (about £2000 in this case)

It doesn't help when LHR are breaking stuff off their approach, aircraft hold for 20 mins etc.

I bet a pilot with a Garmin can delineate the edge of that airspace more accurately than the controller with his radar screen.

I bet the CAA use the radar recordings for prosecution!!

Occasionally there are going to be differences of opinion like this but some controllers are just too ready to give out a tongue lashing on the radio. It is a flight safety issue - a pilot will be distracted for some time afterwards and if nothing else, his lookout is likely to suffer.

I suggest this is investigated properly, I would certainly request it if I felt I was being wrongly accused of an airspace infringement.