|
I heard one guy today being warned off the LHR zone. His answer? "We're right on the line according to my GPS". Modern GPS is reliable and accurate. You'll be happy to learn that the CAA are finally beginning to accept that fact! The astrolabe and quadrant-staff dinosaurs are beginning to be put out to pasture. Can anyone tell me what is required for a GPS to be 'IFR-approved'? Does that simply mean that it may be used for approved GPS approach procedures? If so, it is a misleading description - navigating above 8/8 cloud in VMC with a 'non-IFR' GPS is surely legal, so why not in IMC outside CAS? More and more people will prefer to navigate purely by GPS, particularly given the poor reliability of many Club a/c avionics boxes and the forthcoing decomissioning of VORs and NDBs. Map reading, so beloved of Mr GASIL, is a dubious way of navigating in marginal-yet-legal VFR - a modern GPS of any description is far more accurate and will, if used correctly, be much better at keeping GA pilots from CAS infringements than the Mk 1 eyeball. |
IO540 make an interesting point. If one individual thinks he is on a particular side of a line using GPS and another thinks he is on the other side of the same line using radar, you still have a problem at the time of the perceived infringement.
I don't have an answer to the problem apart from there probably needs to be some form of buffer. ISTR that controllers try to provide some form of lateral buffer inside CAS. Maybe GA pilots should aim to do the same outside of CAS instead of being 'clever' and getting as close as possible to the line (whichever line that is). |
Can anyone tell me what is required for a GPS to be 'IFR-approved'? Does that simply mean that it may be used for approved GPS approach procedures? If so, it is a misleading description - navigating above 8/8 cloud in VMC with a 'non-IFR' GPS is surely legal, so why not in IMC outside CAS? For private enroute flight, the regs (UK/Europe) do not prescribe equipment to be USED. They merely prescribe equipment to be CARRIED. So you can navigate above an overcast with any method you like, legally. (The regs don't even prescribe equipment to be USED for an APPROACH, which is quite funny, but I think that while most people fly an NOB approach using a GPS, most people would actually fly in ILS with an ILS receiver). It is only in BRNAV airspace (IFR, CAS, FL095 plus) that the aircraft must comply with BRNAV which in the GA context means only an IFR GPS, which then de facto becomes mandatory! (Airliners comply with this by having INS, with multiple sensors like DME/DME or, on the really new ones, GPS). In practice, in Europe, BRNAV means you need an IR to be there in the first place. So, for enroute IMC flight, or any other enroute flight for that matter, below FL095, OCAS, any old GPS is 100% legal. |
In an attempt to reduce airspace infringements back in 2008 "Scottish Information" introduced an FIR squawk of 7401. The basis for this was although traffic working Scottish Information will only recieve a non radar "Basic Service" any other radar unit whom see's the Squawk will be aware that traffic is working "Scottish Info" and should it appear that the aircraft is tracking towards their piece of controlled airspace and about to infringe will advise Scottish to transfer the aircraft to their frequency so as to avert any possible infringement. The full details can ben seen in AIC 5/2008but I will highlite the bullet points here...
SCOTTISH FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE - INTRODUCTION OF SSR CODE 7401 3 ATC Procedure for dealing with potential/actual airspace incursion 3.1 When a radar controller observes an aircraft displaying a 7401 code, under circumstances where an airspace violation is, or is about to be, occurring, he/she may contact Scottish Information to attempt to identify the aircraft and arrange for it to be transferred to his/her frequency, if necessary. 4 Scottish Information Action 4.1 Under such circumstances the Scottish Flight Information Service Officer (FISO), acting on the instructions of the relevant ATC controller, will assist in the identification and transfer of the aircraft. The RTF procedure to be used by the FISO will take the following or similar form: ‘(aircraft callsign) instruction from (ATC unit) squawk ident’ followed by: ‘(aircraft callsign) at (ATC unit) request contact (ATC unit and frequency) immediately’ 4.2 When the ATC controller has resolved the situation the aircraft may return to the Scottish Information frequency and, if an SSR code change has been made, may again be requested to squawk SSR code 7401. Note: It should be noted that this instruction only applies to aircraft receiving a Flight Information Service from the FISO at Scottish Information on frequency 119.875 MHz. Aircraft receiving FIS from Scottish ACC on 127.275 MHz, 124.500 MHz or 129.225 MHz should squawk 7000 or any code designated by the Air Traffic Controller whom may use his/her radar-derived information to assist his/her task. In general this has worked well but sadly in the last few months a total of 5 infringements have occured with aircraft busting the Aberdeen CTA/CTZ whilst working Scottish Info. It appears at times Aberdeen have not reacted in accordance with the AIC until the said aircraft had busted their airspace. At the end of the day it is the pilots responsibility to avoid but I feel also the onus is also on ATC to make every effort to stop these infringements before they happen. I know for those of us that operate the FIR sector at Scottish we make every effort possible to avert any infringement but being a non radar sector we have to totally trust and rely on accurate postion reporting from the pilots and when they report over position "A" they are indeed overhead and not 5 miles west!! :cool: |
Fuji,
Stansted rarely gives clearances. The reason they dont is they are under staffed. You really shouldn't make such confident assertions when they just demonstrate your complete ignorance of the facts. Makes one question the veracity of everything else you write. |
Originally Posted by cows getting bigger
I don't have an answer to the problem apart from there probably needs to be some form of buffer. ISTR that controllers try to provide some form of lateral buffer inside CAS. Maybe GA pilots should aim to do the same outside of CAS instead of being 'clever' and getting as close as possible to the line (whichever line that is).
Originally Posted by Australian AIP - ENR 1.1, 12.xx
Avoiding Controlled Airspace
The pilot in command of an aircraft operating in Class G airspace, or to the VFR in Class E airspace, must apply appropriate toler‐ ances to the flight path to ensure that controlled airspace, or re‐ stricted areas, are not infringed. In calculating whether an intended flight path may infringe con‐ trolled airspace, the following navigational tolerances must be ap‐ plied to the intended flight path depending on method of navigation used. These tolerances may be rounded up to the nearest half de‐ gree for practical purposes: NDB ±6.9° VOR/TACAN ±5.2° DR ±12° Note: For DR tracking ±9 o may be used where initial track guidance has been provided by NDB, VOR or TACAN and there is no subsequent change in track. VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT) 0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night) 2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night) 5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night) |
Originally Posted by Mark1234
(Post 5342710)
Something like this (I know it's aus, not the UK, but it seems, er, sensible? good airmanship, something like that?)
VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT) 0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night) 2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night) 5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night) In general keeping a bit of separation is a good idea, however, there are a number of locations in the South where there are quite narrow gaps. Coming around Biggin in IMC is classic, you have the choice of staying with Farnborough and threading a very thin slot or going to Biggin through their ATZ (and hence a much bigger slot), but having no Radar Service. |
The first statement I doubt is accurate, the second statement I know is 100% inaccurate. You really shouldn't make such confident assertions when they just demonstrate your complete ignorance of the facts. Makes one question the veracity of everything else you write. Well have it your own way if you like. However my asserions are based on a good discussion we had on this topic on the darker side to which a number of ATCOs contributed - or at least they claimed they were ATCOs and agreed with the point I made. Of course the discussion could have been an invention of my imagination or those that claimed to be ATCOs could be an invention of their own imagination. :) Anyway as to the point in hand - I can barely recall being refused a SVFR transit of Heathrow and I go that way often. I can barely recall being granted a transit of Stansted - I also go that way often. Perhaps I am dreaming the clearances and the refusals. Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted? Now the claim is often made that of course Stansted is oh so very busy. Busier than Heathrow - I dont think so. The claim is also made the airspace is very complicated. More complicated that a Burnham transit directly underneath the inbound traffic while having to co-ordinate with Northolt departures and arrivals - I also dont think so. The truth of the matter as we discussed elsewhere is Stansted is busier and its integration with Essex does make it a more complicated area to control. However unlike Heathrow there is no spare staffing capacity. There are no controllers tasked to deal with VFR transits and the controllers dealing with inbound CAT havent got the capacity to deal with GA. It is not their fault and I am not blaming them - so do carm down dear. The reality is that NATS has an obligation to allow transits of Stansted and they are failing to meet their obligation because they have not tasked staff to deal with requests. Obviously they dont want to because it adds to their cost, but their are many things we dont want to do. Do you have any idea how far busier areas of airspace in the States readily give transits to crossing traffic? In short unless I have been completely mislead by the comments of other ATCOs and am suffering complete dillusion in which case please forgive me my original comments stand!! :}:} In seriousness sarcasm aside I am very happy to be corrected if I have been mislead by others and if you consider that by allocating staff to handle VFR transits such transits would still prove impossible. |
Io540/cgb
Happened to me with Glasgow Control Zone. I was checking my GPS - right up the line- when call came from another airfield whom I was talking with to contact Glasgow App. I tried, they ignored me, however called up the sup at Glasgow on landing and was told I had infringed. Apologised immediately, he accepted, and then I became a report. I re ran the GPS unit, and my track was very close, however, I felt I was outside, they reported an infringement
It was my fault and I learnt not to go to close without speaking to the CTZ:uhoh: |
This sort of thing is why I always run a GPS track when I fly anywhere. The track is kept for some months in the Garmin 496, till the next flight (say a week later) if I am running Memory Map (UK VFR flights), and indefinitely if I am running Oziexplorer (all foreign flights).
If one was picked up for a falsely alleged bust, the only data they will have is a radar track, which could be out a fair bit, or intermittent, and you will need your super accurate GPS track log to get yourself off the hook. However my guess is that the CAA does not follow up marginal busts - they are not stupid and they know that the pilot probably has a GPS track which in a marginal case any half good lawyer will be able to show is far more accurate than radar. The lists of CAA prosecutions (on their website) make it obvious that most busts are not followed up. Just as well - I did a little one last year myself (phoned up and apologised) :) |
Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted? |
IO540
Yep, another interesting point. I have long argued that NATS and the CAA should interogate the data received on infringements. Maybe they do, I am not sure. If it was a transparent process where pilot and interogater could discuss the circumstances that led to the infringement, then perhaps the situation would get better. I always attempt to fly and learn and therefore take it quite hard if I 'screw' up and bust airspace.
Maybe one large controlled area for all flights:confused:is the answer to busts. All pilots whether VFR/IFR talk to someone. This would go down well I am sure:=As an aside, I would like to view the situation of infringements in say the US. Do they have more or less? Can anything constructive in this area be learned from others. |
VISUAL (POWERED AIRCRAFT) 0 - 2,000 AGL ±1NM ( ±2NM by night) 2,001 - 5,000 AGL ±2NM ( ±3NM by night) 5,001 - 10,000 AGL ±4NM ( ±5NM by night) Where is the list for GPS? Or is that yet another regulator that doesn't think it should be used? |
Maxred - A bit worrying "I always attempt to fly and learn and therefore take it quite hard if I 'screw' up and bust airspace." How many times then?:)
|
Attemp ?
Maxred
I have to agree with Zkdli, it's very worrying that you "attempt" to avoid controlled airspace. Flying and learning by your mistakes after you've infringed is really not the way to do it. I'm sure the sight of a fully laden B737 in your 12 o'clock would make you wish that your "learning" had taken place a little earlier - on the ground perhaps? |
Last two posts grammatical nit picking as usual.
I too attempt to learn, all the time. When I stop learning I think I will be starting to cool down!!! |
Fuji,
Having read the below I don't think it's I that has to carm (sic) down. My original comments stand. Roffa Well have it your own way if you like. However my asserions are based on a good discussion we had on this topic on the darker side to which a number of ATCOs contributed - or at least they claimed they were ATCOs and agreed with the point I made. Of course the discussion could have been an invention of my imagination or those that claimed to be ATCOs could be an invention of their own imagination. Anyway as to the point in hand - I can barely recall being refused a SVFR transit of Heathrow and I go that way often. I can barely recall being granted a transit of Stansted - I also go that way often. Perhaps I am dreaming the clearances and the refusals. Perhaps I am also dreaming the frequent comments made here and elsewhere about the lack of success pilots have with Stansted? Now the claim is often made that of course Stansted is oh so very busy. Busier than Heathrow - I dont think so. The claim is also made the airspace is very complicated. More complicated that a Burnham transit directly underneath the inbound traffic while having to co-ordinate with Northolt departures and arrivals - I also dont think so. The truth of the matter as we discussed elsewhere is Stansted is busier and its integration with Essex does make it a more complicated area to control. However unlike Heathrow there is no spare staffing capacity. There are no controllers tasked to deal with VFR transits and the controllers dealing with inbound CAT havent got the capacity to deal with GA. It is not their fault and I am not blaming them - so do carm down dear. The reality is that NATS has an obligation to allow transits of Stansted and they are failing to meet their obligation because they have not tasked staff to deal with requests. Obviously they dont want to because it adds to their cost, but their are many things we dont want to do. Do you have any idea how far busier areas of airspace in the States readily give transits to crossing traffic? In short unless I have been completely mislead by the comments of other ATCOs and am suffering complete dillusion in which case please forgive me my original comments stand!! In seriousness sarcasm aside I am very happy to be corrected if I have been mislead by others and if you consider that by allocating staff to handle VFR transits such transits would still prove impossible. |
Fair enough - as I said I knew you would want it your own way hence my rather tongue in cheek post.
Its a shame that you couldnt come up with anything more positive by way of explanation why there are repetitive posts about Stansteds inability to provide transits (just read the post above by another forumite as one of very very many examples) and why it is Heathrow is able to provide SVFR transits without issue. Anyway what do I care - I have recently had a long chat with the responsible authority who were candid enough to tell me they recognise their is a real problem and already have the matter under investigation. I have been asked to provide them with every occasion I have been refused a transit and have already done so. I have also been ask to maintain a record of future refusals. :) I am going to start a seperate thread so the extent of the problem may become evident. Best Wishes. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:18. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.