Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By IMCR
#1704891
Which takes us back to the report just published and for which there is a thread on this forum that has just started.

As I have said many times before I am told that the in addition to the usual conseqeunces outlined here for CAT transgressions, on the whole re-education is left to the airlines, as it also is with the military who will dictate additional sim training in the cases that justify.

It would seem this all started because GA's own instructors arent trusted to deliver the course.

Which is why I have also said that the best resolution for GA would aslo be in house - with local instructors (specifically qualified for infringment training if needs must), rather than a GASCo course.

Why?

The instructor knows the airspace around them, they know the gotchas, most pilots dont go far, and it is often in their home patch the infringments occur,

The course would involve some flying were the required skills can best be taught and demonstrated,

The flight could also count as a revalidation flight so there is a duality of purpose,

The fees go back into GA, rather than accumulate on the Balance Sheet of GASCo, were they are needed,

It is convenient and cost effective,

There may be other safety benefits - this is all about safety, isnt it.

It is specific and relevant to the equipment and aircraft the infringer almost certainly operates, and is specific and relevant to the GPS or other avoidance strategy the pilot will be accustom to using.
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1704892
....and I would like to point out that infringements aren’t a UK-only issue. Speak to any US ATCO and they’ll tell you they have an infringement problem too. Other states in Europe are seeing an increase too.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1704894
GonzoEGLL wrote:So you’d support mandatory TMZ/RMZ around all CAS?

I wouldnt have a problem with it as long as the guy I called for a FIS was the guy (or his buddy sat next to him) controlling the Controlled airspace and actually gave me an FIS, NOT the "basic service" currently on offer.

I would go one better and make all airspace above 1500ft class E. That way your IFR flights wont get "dumped" either.

But this, as everyone says, would require a complete re-think of how things in the UK are done.

Regards, SD..
By johnm
#1704895
With what we have today then increasing buffer zones with RMZ and TMZ might be a sensible way forward. I think the days of flying with no Radio or Transponder are really at an end in most places. It is always possible to manage exceptions but they will need to be planned and communicated. No just getting into an electronically silent aircraft and winging one's way across the sky.

However Kirkhope's work opens a door and we ought to be rushing through it mob handed.
User avatar
By T67M
#1705047
GonzoEGLL wrote:Admirable aims, but that isn’t realistic.


We need to find a way to make it realistic otherwise the problem of infringements isn't going to be solved. Lots of other countries have done it, and yes it may need a top-down restructuring of a large number of organisations. No one is saying it is easy, we are saying we are going to have to do it because it is the right thing to do even though it is hard.
James Chan, Stu B liked this
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705058
GonzoEGLL wrote:Admirable aims, but that isn’t realistic.

What can be done with what we have to hand now?


Why not? It's not impossible. I feel the restriction is the fact that CAT want all the benefits of CAS but are not prepared to fund a system which would allow GA to be talking to radar backed FIS which in turn would minimise infringements.

Strangely enough, I'll guarantee that someone will shout

'But who will pay'?'

To which I say:

'How much are infringements currently costing, with go arounds, delays and the like?'

Surely even the blindest bat can see it's a win / win situation.

Hmm... just wondering whether there is data concerning number of infringements compared to GA movements in say, Germany, compared to UK.....
T67M, Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705064
GonzoEGLL wrote:....and I would like to point out that infringements aren’t a UK-only issue. Speak to any US ATCO and they’ll tell you they have an infringement problem too. Other states in Europe are seeing an increase too.


I was fortunate enough that our club organised a fly-out to Bremen. Whilst there, we visited Bremen Infos control centre just before it closed down and all FIS was centralised in Langen. I asked exactly that question - are infringements increasing. The statement was that infringements were actually declining as GA became more used to using the tools open to them - i.e. moving map GPS, FIS..

Flying on the weekend, I often hear:

D-ABCD: what are your intentions with regards the Delta non CTR airspace ahead?

That's one infringement less.....
User avatar
By JonathanB
#1705083
Full Metal Jackass wrote:Flying on the weekend, I often hear:

D-ABCD: what are your intentions with regards the Delta non CTR airspace ahead?

That's one infringement less.....


And yet it's been previously complained about on the forum that they're meddling when agencies in the UK say something similar (albeit different phraseology). Can't win really.
GonzoEGLL, Ben K liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1705094
And the majority of infringements are probably still around the LTMA - where London LARS gets a bad rap and listening squawks are plentiful. Can’t win really.
GonzoEGLL, AndyR liked this
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705101
JonathanB wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:Flying on the weekend, I often hear:

D-ABCD: what are your intentions with regards the Delta non CTR airspace ahead?

That's one infringement less.....


And yet it's been previously complained about on the forum that they're meddling when agencies in the UK say something similar (albeit different phraseology). Can't win really.


Whoever complains about this meddling would probably have been grateful for the assistance once they've been sent to the Gasco course.... I'd rather be reminded once too often than infringe once...
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1705105
AlanM wrote:@rdfb

If I am cleared to fly not above a level I will fly up to that point. So not above 2000ft Is SFC-2000ft.

As and ATCO I will verify your level. If it is within tolerances (ie you say 2000ft and you are showing 2200ft) we are all happy and cool.

It’s not long since I got an ATC patronising bollocking from Gonzo for flying at 2000ft on a “not above 2000” clearance at Leeds when I remarked that thermal/wave activity had caused me to climb a couple of hundred feet above the cleared altitude before I could correct it.
Making use of maximum height available especially over high ground at Leeds or indeed elsewhere or over water etc was standard teaching in my day.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1705106
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:Admirable aims, but that isn’t realistic.

What can be done with what we have to hand now?


Why not? It's not impossible. I feel the restriction is the fact that CAT want all the benefits of CAS but are not prepared to fund a system which would allow GA to be talking to radar backed FIS which in turn would minimise infringements.

Strangely enough, I'll guarantee that someone will shout

'But who will pay'?'

To which I say:

'How much are infringements currently costing, with go arounds, delays and the like?'

Surely even the blindest bat can see it's a win / win situation.

Hmm... just wondering whether there is data concerning number of infringements compared to GA movements in say, Germany, compared to UK.....


Adding a quid to every budget airline ticket would probably cover it! The drunks coming home from Magaluf are usually the first to moan at a delay, yet pay the least per air mile flown!
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By AlanM
#1705113
You still want ME to pay for Airspace Infringements because you can not navigate using a map, your eyes, a GNS430?

(Being Devil’s Advocate here)
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1705120
GonzoEGLL wrote:More advocating......Where do the controllers come from?


Use those quids to train some?