Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1565755
usermention=13169]@GolfHotel[/usermention]if you are not in cas in France, why ask to change frequency and not just tell them?[/quote]

I guess it's my natural shyness and reserve. :D I'm aware that I can initiate the change and would normally just say "request change to xxxx on xxxxx and squawk 7000" while aware they can't refuse it seems polite as they have been providing a service. You know we don't want to foster a them and us culture. :D
By chevvron
#1565868
Dusty_B wrote:
Pilot's Response: On leaving CTA(1), handed over to London Info. Told to squawk 1177, "however I stayed on 7000 as the txp is a mode 'S' which displays registration on the radar screen". Pilot then questions "why did London give a late advice and handover or not advise of airspace ahead?". In their lessons learned, they moan: "Do not rely upon London or any other controller to stop you from entering controlled airspace inadvertently. (On the continent they do)."


1177 is a CONSPICUITY code allocated to London FIR for the benefit of all radar units (not all of whom can 'see' Mode S info) , not just London Info who probably don't even have Mode S capability and if thus will not be able to see your registration; they're only Area FISOs anyway not controllers so cannot provide radar service and certainly can't warn you when you are approaching controlled airspace unless someone else spots the 1177 about to infringe and warns them.
Apologies for the misunderstanding; amended to relect what I really meant :oops:
Last edited by chevvron on Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565869
Do not rely upon .... any other controller to stop you from entering controlled airspace inadvertently. (On the continent they do)


I’m no expert in ATC but I believe there is also a rule in the USA specifically instructing controllers to prevent aircraft being managed by them, to enter anyone elses sector without proper coordination.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565870
JO 7110.65 :

Under no circumstances may one controller permit an aircraft to enter another’s airspace without proper coordination
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565871
(PS. Obviously I am aware I could be quoting out of context.)
User avatar
By Dusty_B
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565874
chevvron wrote:
Dusty_B wrote:
Pilot's Response: On leaving CTA(1), handed over to London Info. Told to squawk 1177, "however I stayed on 7000 as the txp is a mode 'S' which displays registration on the radar screen". Pilot then questions "why did London give a late advice and handover or not advise of airspace ahead?". In their lessons learned, they moan: "Do not rely upon London or any other controller to stop you from entering controlled airspace inadvertently. (On the continent they do)."


1177 is a CONSPICUITY code for all radar units (not all of whom can 'see' Mode S info) , not just London Info who probably don't even have Mode S capability and if thus will not be able to see your registration; they're only Area FISOs anyway not controllers so cannot provide radar service and certainly can't warn you when you are approaching controlled airspace unless someone else spots the 1177 about to infringe and warns them.


Negative. 1177 is reserved for London AC (Swanwick) FIS for aircraft under a Basic Service with London Information. The whole point of the conspicuity codes is that radar operators can figure out who is working you (or not).
By AlanM
#1565886
Chevvers did you mean that adjacent ATC units can see the 1177 squawk and then know who to phone London FIR immediately to see if they have a possible infringer. We are all taught adjacent units squawks for that very reason.
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565887
Of course, if we had a single UK FIS with surveillance, much changing of squawks and probably several infringements could be avoided - arrive on London Information, get assigned squawk, keep it until contacting an approach frequency.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565894
National listening squawk: Bad idea in my opinion.. It would immediately encourage shedding responsibility. And there is far too much of that now. Pilots would just bimble along depending on others in atc to warn them of mistakes, then start complaining they were not told before an infringement, then about some traffic they were not told about too. With individual local codes the pilot has to plan when and where to use them, thus examining the airspace they are passing.
Hawkwind, AlanM, AlanC liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565895
It would immediately encourage shedding responsibility. And there is far too much of that now


Have you flown in the USA Irv?

They have Flight Following in the USA to allow pilots to get ONE service from ONE (large) facility and let ATC sort “everything” out under the covers.

Sure - it’s apples and oranges. But why is it so easy over there?

Over here we have so much listening squawks, so much overlapping areas of radio and radar coverage, Class A airspace, and more types of FIS than any other country.

Yet nowhere else in the (GA) developed world as far as I’m aware continues to have such a serious issue with infringements as we do here.

Just putting in some ideas when others say it’s “always” the pilots who are at fault.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565897
Actually I misread what @Pete L said, I see on 're reading' it is not a National listening squawk being suggested but something like a "basic service plus" on London Info? Same sort of argument applies though.
Ps yes flown in states,
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565899
James Chan wrote:Yet nowhere else in the (GA) developed world as far as I’m aware continues to have such a serious issue with infringements as we do here.

Is that because you believe the published figures abroad? I actually found out how Frankfurt reduced infringements by about 90% in a year according to figures presented at F-hafen a while back. They introduced such high instant ticketing fines (pay on demand or appeal to a court) that controllers only reported infringements officially if they realised they had no choice as someone else would (e.g. air prox). Everyone is quoting "reported infringements". To reduce reported infringements is much easier than reducing infringements
Dusty_B liked this
#1565909
One of my pet gripes is the number of frequencies any aircraft can be on in the same area.
Up here, Leuchars, Edinburgh, Scottish info, Safety com, para dropping, microlights, along with Fife radio if you're not going far.
How can you get the full picture with that?
Why do microlights have their "own" frequency? Or gliders? Just to chit chat among themselves?
James Chan, Nick liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565915
I suppose it's less whether I believe in figures abroad but more about the specific campaign to reduce them in this country.

The campaign itself isn't a problem in my view unless it becomes academic - i.e. a hypothetical scenario where it was discovered that while many pilots strayed into airspace, few were rarely put into risk of collision.

The recent addition of many more listening squawks has added another degree of complexity. While I do support listening as a better alternative than a BS, I had hoped the position of the aircraft coupled with defined airspace boundaries on a chart could help work out who's listening to what.

So the pilot changes frequency wherever he flies but leaves his squawk alone. I wouldn't be listening to Luton when I'm flying towards Manchester, for example.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1565918
In summary I think all parties needs to be on board to help reduce infringements - not just pilots. A decade on and various parts of ATC are still working in their own Class A sectors in lower airspace. The AIS mess continues to make SkyDemon charts look a mess. Nobody can read the CAA/NATS Belfast chart. BFRs have never been properly introduced at the instructor level. And pilots continue to be reluctant to take up GPS. :(
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10