Bust airspace (groan)

[Anon]

It's my first time going straight south from my normal playgrounds in East Anglia. Tootling south through the <2500ft corridor between Stansted and Luton - a bit bumpy with the sunshine, but everything going to plan. I get out from underneath that Class D "bridge" between the two, glance at the chart on my AWARE to see myself "leaving" that bit of complicated airspace, and squeeze on some power to get myself into some smoother air.

Next thing I know, the chap from Farnborough is saying "G-XX, you're indicating 3000'; controlled airspace starts at 2500' where you are", and it's swear-loudly-pull-power-point-nose-downwards-stop-swearing-long-enough-to-apologise-level-out-breeeathe. I look at the chart, and of course I've just vertically infringed the LTMA.

Things I did right (as I see it):

• I was talking to Farnborough, so I could get called out very quickly by name and callsign when I did something stupid, so hopefully didn't cause too much chaos in the LTMA.

Things I did wrong:

• Not read my bloody chart correctly. The LTMA is marked on the other side of that airspace boundary on the chart, but all I saw was the thick blue line that, where I usually fly, means "you're scot free, climb away".
• Mark my plog with maximum as well as minimum altitudes. I'd planned the trip for 2000, and checked my MSAs, but didn't have a max altitude on each leg. Especially when I'm in a new area, being bounced around, reading a tiny square of a chart on a pixellated screen is not the most reliable way to check that I was clear to ascend.

Also worth noting (although I wouldn't say I rely on it as such; it's more a useful backup), the beeping protest the AWARE normally gives you is practically useless in a situation like that. At 2000' under 2500' airspace, it's going off more or less continuously, so it didn't warn me that this time I was doing more than just cutting it fine.

Anyway. Good to get that off my chest - any words from the wise would be much appreciated.

[Gertie]

Mark my plog with maximum as well as minimum altitudes.

I always do that.

When I bust airspace around there I was talking to Luton whilst trying to dodge considerably worse-than-forecast weather on a divertion having given up trying to reach my destination. I decided to hop over rather than under that tiny cloud in front of me - mistake.

The Luton controller drew my attention to the error but didn't seem very upset about it.

[Irv Lee]

My commiserations, there are various bear-traps to fall into around London.
The skydemonlight is v useful for highlighting issues in preflight planning providing the user puts in the max intended altitude down on the right hand side, then draws the route, and then looks for 'red warnings' on the right too- then perhaps reducing the altitude until the red ones go and the yellow are acceptable.
I had a classic example of how useful this 'red warning' thing can be, when merely demo-ing to some pilots. I demo'd Oxford to Lydd direct line at 3000' (obviously 'red' warnings if you work that out), then pulled the route to dogleg at Selsey Bill, merely to demo the doglegging and the disappearance of 'red warnings' and inspect the yellows on this new route. Much to my surprise, one 'red' remained! There is a small laser site in Sussex that my randomly chosen 'demo' dogleg went straight through, but the point being although it was just a demo, it's so easy to make assumptions which are wrong!
Also, Jonathan Penny and I did that DVD and online clips for VFR nav around London and up between Luton/Stansted which can be played on the yellow routes shown on http://www.airspacesafety.com/guides/content/ - I think in the leg going up between Luton and Stansted we make a point of mentioning that if you have a GPS zoomed in too much, you see the 'boundary' of the CTA with upper and lower limits of the CTA, but the LTMA above that is only noted in the centre of the CTA segment - so zoomed in too much, any pilot who only looks at the GPS will not see the extra information of the LTMA above until that part of the moving map creeps onto the screen.

[adhawkins]

Especially when I'm in a new area, being bounced around, reading a tiny square of a chart on a pixellated screen is not the most reliable way to check that I was clear to ascend.

I think I'd have made sure I had a paper chart to refer to. Use the Aware to let you know where you are, and refer to the chart to see what restrictions that puts on you.

Andy

[TheKentishFledgling]

If you don't mind saying, what's the outcome been? Ticking off over the radio? Phone call on the ground? Visit from some heavies with baseball bats?

[Gertie]

If you don't mind saying, what's the outcome been?

Isn't the typical conversation:

"Report your level."

"Whoops sorry, 2550, decsending."

"No problem."

End of.

[Anon]

If you don't mind saying, what's the outcome been? Ticking off over the radio? Phone call on the ground? Visit from some heavies with baseball bats?

Very mild, actually - I announced that I was descending through 2500' now and was very sorry and could I have a confirmation of my position, and got a "Roger, you are two miles north of XYZ", but nothing more. Once I'd got myself sorted out, and before leaving the frequency, I asked whom I should be calling to apologise for the incident. The man in Farnborough just said "no-one", and something to the effect of "I haven't received any angry phone calls, so it looks like you got away with it this time."

To respond to Andy above - I had a paper chart in the cockpit, but didn't consult it until afterwards - at which point I could take a wide-angle view and go "d'oh, yes, LTMA".

And Mike T, of course - but as I understand it I'd just flown through a TMZ anyhow, so if I weren't squawking I shouldn't have been there in the first place. (And I reckon that "squawk Mode C if you have it and you're around busy airspace" is long past the point where I should be giving myself a cookie for doing so - whereas planning whom to get a service from, listening squawks, etc, requires active attention and preflight planning I'm allowed to be proud of, or at least satisfied with )

[jollyrog]

Tootling south through the <2500ft corridor between Stansted and Luton

If only the controller had asked you on first contact "confirm you will remain outside the Stansted and Luton zones and the London TMA" then none of this would have happened.

[Irv Lee]

Tootling south through the <2500ft corridor between Stansted and Luton

If only the controller had asked you on first contact "confirm you will remain outside the Stansted and Luton zones and the London TMA" then none of this would have happened.

very good, JR, not sure everyone reading this will understand the reference, but enough will appreciate it!

[johnm]

Given your position you'd only interefere with a heavily laden DC4 or some such. Any modern airliner would be way up above.

The London TMA needs updating.

[JonathanB]

Given your position you'd only interefere with a heavily laden DC4 or some such. Any modern airliner would be way up above.

Apart from the fact that against unknown traffic controllers will need to provide 5000ft separation or 5 miles (might be 3 miles in the TMA, not sure). You could quite easily get traffic in that area below FL80 which may need to be vectored or climbed to get it out of the way with additional knock-on effects. The London City Compton/Brookmans Park SIDs route across that area, possibly as low as 3000ft (unlikely to be held down, but could well be still in the climb below FL80) and Northolt traffic could well be held down as well - in both cases below the Heathrow stacks at Bovingdon and Lambourne.

The London TMA needs updating.

The interactions between all the traffic flows make it rather complex, and I doubt very much that there is much scope to increase the base of the TMA in the Bovingdon-Brookmans Park-Lambourne area.

[Irv Lee]

There is routinely traffic from 3,000ft up in the BPK area.

The majority of it legal as well!

[ROG]

Only done it once--provided you apologise--grovel a bit--normally ok. The ones who end up with problems are those who argue when in the wrong.

[Irv Lee]

The ones who end up with problems are those who argue

If they are in the group who fly without Mode C either through their 'choice' or lack of airmanship or equipment, what makes you think they'd always be around to argue afterwards?

[Morley]

Only done it once--provided you apologise--grovel a bit--normally ok. The ones who end up with problems are those who argue when in the wrong.

Such as the pr@ at Solent who told Farnborough I had infringed and that he was going to report me. I knew I hadnt but telephoned farnboro' anyway who confirmed it so I rang him (well my stude did) and he was told "i'll let you off this time"

What a whancker.