Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10
#1472473
TheFarmer wrote:I vehemently and passionately stand by my opinion that GPS has increased infringements, and jeopardises the future of GA.


Not that the proliferation of controlled airspace has had some impact then? Or are they both contributory?

Rob P
#1472477
kanga wrote:Some driving instructors I know offer a post-test range of 1-off lessons including Motorway driving, driving at night, and (off public highway) towing (and reversing a trailer). Obviously, these cost more when new driver thought that such expenditure was past, but the instructors get a reasonable take-up, especially from parents if latter have been paying for the lessons thitherto.

Would the ATO in question be prepared to let FIs offer analogous post-GFT 'extras', and maybe even insist on them before self-fly hire on routes other than those used (repetitively ?) during pre-GFT training ? Could include GPS, flight through Class D, grass strips or larger airports (if either unfamiliar) .. Again, more expense, but could be attractive to new PPL especially in a 4-seater when it would still be possible for 2 friends to come along as passengers .. new PPL could retain 'bragging rights' , with FI coming along ostensibly 'to help with the radio' and to explain to passengers 'what brilliant new pilot is doing' without pilot distraction .. :)

Or FI could recommend (should aready have ?) that new PPL should join LAA (nationally and/or local Strut) for ride-sharing (in new types, to new places) opportunities and for access to LAA Coach scheme.


My bold - this should be taught before GFT....
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1472483
Rob

No.

If you look at a UK airspace chart, it's very clear, and there's no ambiguity. None at all. Anyone with a PPL/NPPL should be able to navigate confidently from east to west, and north to south, within the limitations of their licenses without any problems. You can, I can, and we all should be able to.

The question of how much airspace we have is a wholly different subject. What I'm saying (and is the topic of this discussion) is that people should be able to navigate the country by air, without busting airspace.

The reason there are more infringements is NOTHING to do with the changes in airspace. Look at the percentage change in overall airspace in 15 years. It's actually quite tiny in percentage terms.

The problem, with very little doubt, is that many GA pilots simply don't bother getting mentally up to speed with the changes in airspace that are happening, largely because they are "magenta magnets", and then to blame the changes in airspace when they f*** up is an easy way out for them.

I've been saying this for years, but am often shot down for it.

Regardless of the tech you use, visually learn the bluddy airspace the night before, and it makes the following day a damned site easier and less risky*.

* The way I wrote that implies that you (Rob) didn't visualise airspace, but I know you do. It was aimed at the "hop in and press GO FLYING"'brigade.
#1472489
TheFarmer wrote:Rob

No.

If you look at a UK airspace chart, it's very clear, and there's no ambiguity.


I did not suggest it was to do with ambiguity.

Five years back East Anglia was a big, wide-open space.

Today it is hemmed in with Gatwick-sized Delia Tumbleweed International to the north and Sharon & Tracey International to the south.

More airspace inevitably means more infringements n'est ce pas?

Rob P
MercianMarcus liked this
#1472491
Perdix wrote:Quote by Irv Lee:

"Personally, I think quite a measurable % of infringements would be saved purely by making sure pilots understand the wider consequences.... Like the stress and health effects on some controllers..."

And what about the effect NATS personnel industrial and strike action over the past 40 years has had on the travelling public and aircrews?

I will never forget the distress and squalor imposed on my passengers and crew by these people, and for that reason will now, in my private flying dotage, have nothing to do with them, and will remind any ATCO I meet of their despicable past conduct.


ATC staff from the organisation that later became the current NATS Ltd/NERL/NSL last took part in strike action in 1980 or 1981, think it was 1980.

I very much doubt, given the action involved just a few half days of strikes and no 'all out' action, that anyone suffered real distress or squalor.

I joined in '81 and have taken no part in any industrial action, because there hasn't been any. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero.

Get a sense of perspective, holding a pointless grudge that length of time can't be healthy and raises more questions about the mental health of the grudge holder than anything else. Despicable past conduct my *rse.
Lefty liked this
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1472493
Rob P wrote:
Five years back East Anglia was a big, wide-open space.

Today it is hemmed in with Gatwick-sized Delia Tumbleweed International to the north and Sharon & Tracey International to the south.

More airspace inevitably means more infringements n'est ce pas?

Rob P


But why should it?

Look at it now.

Image


It's hardly a spaghetti junction! If the 11 fingered cousin-lovers struggle to avoid that kind of airspace, then what'll they do when they head our way, as below??!!!



Image

Sorry, but I just don't buy into the "airspace has got too complex for us too remain clear" argument. I ain't no SkyGod, and neither are you, but we aren't going to blindly fly into Class A and then blame the system; so why should Mr Malcolm Magenta be able to?

It's hardly rocket science to either simply get approval for transits, or stay well clear.

PS I've just noticed the 500 foot quadruple duck hazard along Norfolk's north coast! What's all that about then?! :D
Last edited by TheFarmer on Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pilotbarry, AlanM, cjm_wales liked this
#1472496
I feel you are missing the point.

If there are more 30 mph limits imposed on roads the number of speeding offences will increase. Inevitable.

If the restrictions on firearms are increased there will be more firearms offences. Inevitable.

If there is more CAS for the bewildered to blunder into ......

I'm not trying to excuse any of the infringements, merely pointing out the certainty that the more rules there are to break the more broken rules there will be.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1472497
Let's agree to disagree. :D

If we are using the speeding and firearm comparative analogies though, I'd say that pilots blaming the airspace for their infringements, is like a motorist blaming the power of their car for their speed, or a gunman blaming the sensitivity of his trigger for shooting the wrong thing. :wink:

It just doesn't (and shouldn't) wash.

To summarise, I'm all for less airspace! But when pilots start blaming the airspace for their infringements, they're onto a very sticky wicket, and the immediate reaction from the powers that be could quite easily be to question their competence, and this is exactly what's happening......
Hawkwind, Irv Lee, AlanM and 1 others liked this
#1472503
Simple question. If there were no CAS how many infringements would there be?

Rob P wrote:I'm not trying to excuse any of the infringements, merely pointing out the certainty that the more rules there are to break the more broken rules there will be.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1472514
:D

Rob,

I can see where you're going to go with this, but my point is that we are looking at this from completely different angles.

I'm saying that it's a pilot's fault for infringing airspace, and you're saying it's the fault of the airspace for being there that caused the infringement.

If we are into those kind of analogies....

A bloke rents a flat above a Dominos pizza outlet. After three months he weighs 20 lbs more than when he moved in, due to eating too much pizza.

I'm saying that's his fault. You're saying it's Dominos' fault.

:lol:
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1472515
Well without CAS it wouldn't be zero, pilots infringe class G too, like active firing areas, atz, red arrows restrictions, etc. Once the effects filtered through of no protection for commercial airlines, oroners would be busy though, Eurostar would be full, etc . But I don't see how this or some other posts address the question asked by the OP.
I am not sure the instructor who raised this has had much clear advice other than from me and yet I am the one who has been told he is talking in riddles. (Added later- not true, missed some - change to "from most posts here)
No one has picked up that he has paid good money and had two days away from earnings for an approved instructor refresher seminar, yet he is asking advice here on what to tell his pupils about infringements. Does no one wonder why would that be? If he had gone to either of two offerings, one by On Track, one by Dorothy Pooley, this thread would not have been raised (by him anyway). Each has 55 minutes setting the scene and directly answering his question with notes, tips, and tools to take away for the task.
I will add some more answers to his question later today, I cannot believe how long it has taken me this weekend to update my deconfuser checklist for part NCO and I have to tackle my biennial briefing sheet yet.
Last edited by Irv Lee on Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
#1472518
When I infringe it's usually because I'm under a 1500' shelf dodging a 700' hill with eyes outside the cockpit (as trained) and get caught in an updraught. Maybe instruction should focus on getting people to spend more time staring at their instruments?

And GPS has made my life a lot easier, as the CAA was never thoughtful enough to paint lines marking airspace boundaries across the countryside. By the way - is the actual edge the inside or the outside of the line on the chart? They can be an easy half mile wide.
MercianMarcus liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10