[Joe Dell]

With the navigational aids and up-to-date information available to us all these days, I'm struggling to see a reason for an increase in infringements.

Compared to 30+ years ago when I first started flying, my workload when flying VFR is probably a tenth of what it used to be. All down to huge advances in highly accurate, affordable and idiot- proof electronic aids.

It's no longer an excuse to blame a simple navigational error, a mis-set D.I or winds not as forecast, so what's the biggest reason for the increase?

[Flintstone]

Complacency?

Or perhaps the infringers aren't using the latest technology.

Or maybe they are but incorrectly.

Dunno.

[Satcop]

Two more complaints from Gatwick today that I was too high, when I wasn't. I made it clear that I hadn't infringed and no more said, but it is this kind of thing that troubles me about the new proposal.

Jollyrog I don't think these were complaints. In the example you've given TC Gatwick are required to contact us and we will ask you to report your altitude, if you are outside controlled airspace (even though your altitude readout is indicating above your actual altitude) there is no infringement.

I haven't spoken with TC Ops however I would expect an alert indicating a minor infringement of the CTA to be NFA'd when the aircraft is confirmed to be below controlled airspace. Infringements of the CTR resulting in CAT being broken off the approach or departures stopped are different matter.

One point to bear in mind is that while you may be able to fly at 1499ft don't expect the altitude readout to be that accurate.

[T67M]

One point to bear in mind is that while you may be able to fly at 1499ft don't expect the altitude readout to be that accurate.

It's even worse than that - most Mode-C/S transponders only have a resolution of 100 feet, so they can only send 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 etc. A climb of 1ft can therefore look to ATC like a climb of 100ft.

The latest and greatest transponders can manage 25ft resolution, but are still only accurate to +/-50ft due to altimetry errors.

[jollyrog]

Two more complaints from Gatwick today that I was too high, when I wasn't. I made it clear that I hadn't infringed and no more said, but it is this kind of thing that troubles me about the new proposal.

Jollyrog I don't think these were complaints. In the example you've given TC Gatwick are required to contact us and we will ask you to report your altitude, if you are outside controlled airspace (even though your altitude readout is indicating above your actual altitude) there is no infringement.

I haven't spoken with TC Ops however I would expect an alert indicating a minor infringement of the CTA to be NFA'd when the aircraft is confirmed to be below controlled airspace. Infringements of the CTR resulting in CAT being broken off the approach or departures stopped are different matter.

Thanks for the explanation Satcop, I now know more than I did.

One point to bear in mind is that while you may be able to fly at 1499ft don't expect the altitude readout to be that accurate.

It wasn't quite 1,499ft. I might be good (?), but I'm not that good.

I think it was 1,498ft.

[riverrock]

One point to bear in mind is that while you may be able to fly at 1499ft don't expect the altitude readout to be that accurate.

It's even worse than that - most Mode-C/S transponders only have a resolution of 100 feet, so they can only send 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 etc. A climb of 1ft can therefore look to ATC like a climb of 100ft.

The latest and greatest transponders can manage 25ft resolution, but are still only accurate to +/-50ft due to altimetry errors.

To be precise - the mode-c standard only has a resolution of 100 feet, so 950 feet and 1049 feet will be transmitted the same (if you have a perfect encoder). http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt

Your transponder needs to be Mode-S to be any more accurate.

[TheFarmer]

It's no longer an excuse to blame a simple navigational error, a mis-set D.I or winds not as forecast, so what's the biggest reason for the increase?

PPL (active, and with current medical) numbers have fallen progressively over the last fifteen years, and dramatically so in the last five years.

Airspace infringements are, according to Rob Gratton of the CAA, "worryingly high", and he commented that "We need to see the numbers decline urgently".

If ever there has been a need for something to change, it's now, but do we really have no idea what there is such an increase of incidents, and in a rapidly shrinking fraternity?

You all know exactly what I believe the reason is, and I've been saying it to the point I've been shooed away from here, more than once, and I believe it even more vehemently than ever. But if something doesnt change in that regard, we are gonna be in the poo. It's bluddy simple.

I don't for one minute lay blame at the door of more complex airspace, as the charts 10 years ago are hardly clear of blue and purple outlines, and people were obviously much better at steering around these than they are now.

The answer IMHO is to find a way to get pilots visualising the 3D airspace around them rather than just waiting for a pretty little warning box to pop up on their lap, only to find that sometimes it doesn't.

[JonathanB]

I think the reason is the reason you think, but because people aren't studying their route and the airspace beforehand, rather than purely being the fault of the thing that shan't be named. If you see what I mean. If proper planning (in terms of studying your plan and the associated airspace and obstacles properly) is carried out then, the thing in question (or others like it) has got to be the way forward. People need to train themselves (or be trained) to use it properly.

[MercianMarcus]

Why all the speculation (and unsubstantiated conjecture) about why infringers infringe; is it beyond the wit and capability of the CAA to investigate and report?

[TheFarmer]

JB, I see what you're saying, and I agree fully. It's what I meant I suppose.

[G-BLEW]

Have a look at the reports at FlyOnTrack.

Ian

[JoeC]

As a starting point I think the grown-up and impartial investigator with no axe to grind would be asking has the reporting and measurement of infringements changed in any way over the past few years?

Along with factors such as the creation of new class D airspace, changes in RT terminology, licensing, medicals and technology may all have a cumulative effect (or not!) on infringements.

Based on this the question on the why and how could be investigated with a more relevant base than potentially biased gut feeling that may be doing a genuine disservice to GA pilots. To point the finger at one cause, without greater thought, research or evidence is hardly ideal although may be superficially pleasing.

[JoeC]

Also quality of training... See any of Irv's recent posts.

[TheKentishFledgling]

I think the reason is the reason you think, but because people aren't studying their route and the airspace beforehand, rather than purely being the fault of the thing that shan't be named. If you see what I mean. If proper planning (in terms of studying your plan and the associated airspace and obstacles properly) is carried out then, the thing in question (or others like it) has got to be the way forward. People need to train themselves (or be trained) to use it properly.

Well said. As much as the actual flying, I genuinely enjoy sitting down beforehand (maybe the night a flight before with a beer) and having a good look at the route and area I'm flying into and giving myself a briefing into what the route and destination entails in terms of airspace, terrain, danger areas etc. I still prefer using a paper chart for this - so much easier to visual the whole route and see the bigger picture.

Once that's done, SD or similar can be used effectively, as ones should be able to anticipate so much more what is likely to crop up ahead.

[JoeC]

Have a look at the reports at FlyOnTrack.

Ian

They all seem to be ADF, VOR, QFE, QNH causes along with various human factors.