Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

02/02/2010, 11:14 AM FlyOnTrack Joined on 29/10/2006 GASCo Posts 96 Reasons For Infringements In preparation for the new 2010 'flying season', (whenever that is), FlyOnTrack is beginning to expand the 'ATC/Pilot' reports' section with brief (dis-identified) snippets written by the pilots (or instructors) involved in an infringement, the idea being to share the cause of their problems, in case reading about theirs prevents a future one. There are four 2009 ones there to start off, (plus a previous longer report) and there will be more infringement snippets (from last year) released over the next few weeks. See http://www.flyontrack.co.uk and click on 'ATC Pilot Reports'. Feel free to discuss!    Report

24/02/2010, 12:02 AM FlyOnTrack Joined on 29/10/2006 GASCo Posts 96 Re: Reasons For Infringements here are four more 'pilot' reports ( Nos 5 to 8 ) - http://www.flyontrack.co.uk/content/reports.asp - latest four at the top of the list.    Report

27/02/2010, 10:47 AM Aviator|Chris Joined on 28/01/2009 EGBW Posts 378 Re: Reasons For Infringements You guys do great work collating all this!    Report

09/04/2010, 2:42 PM david Perry Joined on 09/04/2010 Posts 12 Re: Reasons For Infringements No one seems to be screaming loudly enough about the single most obvious and likely cause of the airspace infringements: there are too many overly complex areas of airspace. Heck, its a 3D jigsaw out there. Unless pilots are getting worse, or more careless over the years, the only cause of increasing numbers of infringements, MUST be, the airspace is too complex. What is odd though, is that as more and more PPLs get into trouble for going INTO airspace they ought not, more and more when I fly my airliner, I have to go OUT of the airspace and take "the highest level of service I can get" in order to expedite my climb. This is daftness surely, the airspace clearly suits no one flying, just the office wallahs maybe, who spend their days inventing this stuff. David    Report

09/04/2010, 7:33 PM Aviator|Chris Joined on 28/01/2009 EGBW Posts 378 Re: Reasons For Infringements Spot on Dave! Opening the UK charts reveal a mess of tangled airspace webs as each zone and airport consumes more and more airspace. There is very little open flying space in the UK in reality, and this causes greater concern for mid-air near misses or heaven forbid, collisions as pilots are forced down narrowing corridors.    Report

10/04/2010, 8:19 AM FlyOnTrack Joined on 29/10/2006 GASCo Posts 96 Re: Reasons For Infringements I think a lot of people are concerned about this complexity, but perhaps I could start a 'perception' discussion. WHY do you think that airspace in the UK has all these complicated low level steps? What might have caused the design to be like that? Feel free to 'shoot from the hip' with your gut feeling!    Report

10/04/2010, 7:41 PM Aviator|Chris Joined on 28/01/2009 EGBW Posts 378 Re: Reasons For Infringements We are not a huge country, we don't have a lot of space really do we? People forget at high level, where aviation started. Not as a commercial thing but as a thing to be enjoyed by all. There has to be space for everybody to co-exist. Look at our American friends over the pond. They embrace Aviation like a third arm. I dont think thats just because of space and the fact that they were the country that created powered flight.    Report

11/04/2010, 10:58 AM david Perry Joined on 09/04/2010 Posts 12 Re: Reasons For Infringements The complexity of airspace is an accountants dream I am sure. Mr Oweary goes to Hullington side airport and says, yes, I'd love to park my new dreamiiners in your airport and bring you all the revenew that goes with it, but dear oh dear, all the little planes get in the way and stop my 20 minute turnarounds, so I cant do it. The accountants say, yes you bloomin can mate, watch this... and they go off on an airspace grab. Now they cant get all they want (total class A space from sea level to 20,000ft, so they compromise and get what they can. Then Oweary is happy and the accountants are happy. It is theft, pure and simple. If Perssimon homes came along and grabbed all the parks and school grounds for commercial gain there'd be hell to pay. What would be better? Well, how about total class G everywhere but ATZ.s (ring an historic bell???). Then how about an escalating airspace based on weather - so at LGW say., the ATZ expands conically upwards and outwards as the weather deteriorates. So when I am cat1, ATZ, but when a Cat3 is likely, BIG ATZ. Or instead of that rather complicated set of rules (though why it is I do not know, PPLs cannot fly in bad Wx without and IR / IMC, and by definition such pilots will be in the Class A anyway if they want to) how about compulsory TXPDRS within, say, 30 miles of a large IFR airfield? Now, I'd go for that. I am not a TXPDR lover, but (as a PPL)I could keep away from the major airfleds by 30 miles very easily. In my Airbus I can get from 10,000 ft to the deck in 30 miles. Not many PPLs up at 10,000! So, make everything above 10,000 Class A. Or, here's an idea, about make the TL 18,000 like our US cousins? Personally I'd go for 10,000 over here due to our smailler size. So Class A above FL100, Class G below it with ATZ out to 30nm for major fields. Thats infringements AND theTransition Level mish-mash gone in one fell swoop! Even so, when I fly out of BRS I keep my eyes peeled for glidrers, balloons, the police, the school planes and transiting "others". Is it a worry? No, not really. My only concern is the gliders (hard to see) and the baloons (hard not to watch!). ALL airfields should be legally obliged to mix ALL airtraffic, and if OWeary cant manage it, keep out. (There are some issues of course, like it takes me ten miles to slow down etc. The other issue is that I might be coming in on low fuel and not WANT to dodge around a Piper. Know what I think? Too bad. If commercial operators cant afford to carry the fuel then the market has changed and we have no right to exist. The airspace is for everyones benefit, it is a public right, not a priviledge ,to be able to get a pilots ticket and enjoy the gift of wings. Well thats me looking for a new job... D Please excuse the typos...I cant see the small text too well!    Report

11/04/2010, 11:10 AM Aviator|Chris Joined on 28/01/2009 EGBW Posts 378 Re: Reasons For Infringements Top statement Dave! I too would like to know since when did commercial aviation own the air above our heads?    Report

16/04/2010, 4:15 PM fuzzy6988 Joined on 16/04/2010 London Posts 5 Re: Reasons For Infringements --BEGIN QUOTE--- No one seems to be screaming loudly enough about the single most obvious and likely cause of the airspace infringements: there are too many overly complex areas of airspace --END QUOTE--- I also agree that there are too many overly complex areas of airspace. --BEGIN QUOTE--- WHY do you think that airspace in the UK has all these complicated low level steps? What might have caused the design to be like that? --END QUOTE--- Several reasons I see for causes of infringements: 1) CAS is designed tightly around STARs, SIDs and Airways with differing base levels and little or no relationship to visual ground features or radio navaids. All this combined makes airspace look horribly complex. Mathematically sum up the total length of CAS boundaries on ENR 6.1.4.1. This length is a good indication of the surface area exposed which gives rise to infringements. Like the grille on the back of a radiator. As an example, take Y8, a tiny 'bit' of airway just NE of the Isle of Wight. This has a different base level than everything else around it. I do not plan to fly under it at FL70 for example, just to avoid this bit. One who really tries to do so may be asking for a bust. So one would typically plan a flight way below the adjacent 'bits' around it too. This would generally be 2400ft for the London TMA. There's worse. North West of Luton there's a block with a base of FL55 next to another block with a base of 5500 feet... Therefore it seems plausible to simplify the number of 'shelves' of airspace with the advantage of reducing chart clutter and simplifying the flight planning process, which is a great help to the pilot. The area of CAS would grow, but it doesn't concern me half as much as the chart clutter that we've got now. I'd prefer to have the use of more standard shapes such as America's "inverted wedding cakes" which has clearly written base levels. Less infringements happen when the airspace structure is simpler leading to uncluttered, clearer charts. 2) Class A airspace being established at low-levels so that VFR transits are never possible, regardless whether or not there is any traffic, even if it is VMC. This can upset non-IR pilots and many are wary about any extension of CAS because of a lack of airspace access and service provision for transits. Hence some may drive for a reduction in Class A, which gives rise to the problems found in 1) above. If the issues of 1) are addressed and CAS is enlarged, I would guess that after SES is implemented, the sequencing of busy IFR traffic can be done hundreds of miles out, thereby reducing the complexity and intensity of the TMA and enabling it to take simpler structures. It may therefore be possible to then reclassify any Class A TMA (or parts of it) to B or C which is a feature of equivalent busy airports in America. Perhaps consequently the existing Class A airways should be reclassified to D or E as well which is what is being used around the rest of Europe. Less infringements happen when pilots are in receipt of a service and have access to airspace. 3) There is poor traffic co-ordination between neighbouring ATSUs. Fly around London to know that you'll be freecalling several stations. You'll pass repeated information over and over again on the radio, changing squawk codes along the way. You put yourself into the ATC system and get dropped from it when moving from one area to the next. Find multiple aircraft in pretty much the same space talking to completely different units - some radar equipped, some not. There are even issues with the wider distribution of radar feeds to other operators. The same units then complain about aircraft infringing their space. I envision a greater known traffic environment served by a centralised facility which sorts out all IFR+VFR traffic. Not just CAT landing at the largest airports and other CAT revolving around it. Less infringements happen when there is better co-ordination of all air traffic between adjacent ATS units 4) Historically, airspace has been designed with the commercial user in mind without much thought given for other legitimate airspace users. The result of it is this patchwork of airspace and fragmented service provision as described above. It works fine for the airlines, but inadequate for GA traffic. Making matters worse is the controversial privatisation of ATC which is still in debt and needs to recover its costs. I suspect there is little commercial incentive for any massive redesign of airspace. Yet we know GA cannot afford to pay even more fees on top. Funding needs to come from the government as a result of better services for GA. Already large amounts of money are being raised from AVGAS duty and VAT which is pocketed by the Treasury and doesn't get re-invested into developing aviation infrastructure. With more investment and a centralised ATC function, instrument approaches and traffic separation for GA airfields like Elstree, Stapleford and Andrewsfield could be provided and better managed when the weather isn't ideal. In America, radar services provided at large airports serve the smaller ones around it for miles around (New York Approach, Miami Approach, Fort Myers Approach, etc). Currently widespread Class G means no separation when flying IFR, even in IMC. You fly using see-and-avoid, but there isn't much to see. If converted to Class E, separation is offered, yet flexible flying (and no clearance needed) is still preserved whilst VFR. It can give more space for ATC to use as well. Less infringements happen when pilots know the service and the wider system, works for them, with them, and not against them. 5) PPL navigation taught using WW1 dead-reckoning techniques, which is error prone. We know that winds can change in the middle of flight. Besides improving pilot navigation, the use of GPS should be included in the PPL syllabus and easy to use GPS devices fitted to most hire planes. VOR reception coverage is not comprehensive enough at lower altitudes. In addition in America, one could ask for VFR Flight Following and ATC would give you vectors to fly all the way from A to B. While the pilot can get away with navigating less around any busy area, it is also in the controller's interest to make VFR traffic known against extant IFR traffic. In the UK, such a luxury is rare.  Less infringements happen when pilots are equipped with modern tools and techniques to help them navigate better. I wonder how many infringements happen in the New York region every year, which handles more aircraft than the South of England. I would guess everyone is taking a flight following service or transitting through the zone while talking to one central facility which manages and co-ordinates all its traffic. Alternatively they are flying VFR corridors defined using clearly marked ground reference features, such as a river, a major road, or electric pylons. Irv Lee - I'd be interested to know your thoughts.    Report

27/08/2010, 12:23 AM Old 'n' Airborne Joined on 26/08/2010 Posts 5 Re: Reasons For Infringements I found that website a few weeks ago and found it very good - learn by the mistakes of others (The Microlight from Duxford into Stansted was the best one so far). I fly out of Stapleford so know the issues well and i am quite aware of the upper limits everywhere and being on the corner of the Stansted CTA. I even managed a nav route under the LTMA alongside Stansted under 2000ft in high winds. even thou i didn't need too i switched to Stansted and put 1013 on my Txdr - I have problems maintaining S+L =) it would have saved my instructor an interview if i climbed my usual +/- 200ft. The country is too confined and that is why our control space is tight. The Airbox AWARE is a very good idea, i dont have or use one - but im sure it would help me post training.    Report

23/09/2010, 11:00 AM Voice of Wisdom Joined on 22/09/2010 Posts 7 Re: Reasons For Infringements Well said Dave Perry...no doubt there is a huge fiscal/ capitalistic element here...However ,from the point of view of a VFR only PPL I keep it simple : 1.) do your preflight ground preparation carefully.2.)always use Transponder mode-C 3.) tentative listening to ATC;if too busy, listen ..if not too busy,communicate,communicate,communicate using correct terminology 4.) use GPS and at all time compare to your manual flight track/plan as you move along...keep it simple...compare the meercat.com/ compare the logic.com..Simple..teh..!!    Report

Pilot WebPilot CommunityAviation Genera...Reasons For Infringements

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Announcements |- New Message Board FAQ Pilot Community |- Aviation General |- PPL Training |- Commercial Training |- Rotary |- Microlights |- Gliding |- Air Shows, Events & Fly-ins |- Flight Sims |- Jokes & Humour |- Group Flying Pilot mag & PilotWeb |- PilotWeb |- Pilot magazine