Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 54
By Stampe
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1799955
If the strong rumours prove true this is not the end of the matter.The whole culture in the CAA and NATS must change.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Winston Churchill
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1799983
I see the MORs every month getting them is not hard.

I also endorse @Sooty25 comments having worked on the railway, the London Underground and the Channel Tunnel, we always had a focus on safety and it was a very just culture even for the 2 idiots who got us fined £10,000 :roll:
#1801517
I see the Airspace & Safety Initiative has issued another reference to all the 'infringements of Farnborough Controlled Airspace'.

This is of course shocking and comes as a complete surprise to all of GA.

I have the solution, which is staring us all in the face.

We should give Farnborough full control of all the airspace from the surface to the base of the LTMA - which is only about 100 NM across, not NEARLY enough.
Give 'London' Southend everything from their border with Norwich to the base of the TMA or FL105, outside it.
'London' Oxford should have the north west and
Bournemouth and Southampton could hold a triangle stretching to Bristol from a base of 15 inches AMSL.

I am confident the number of infringements would plummet. :lol:
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1801518
What’s interesting about the latest batch of F/W* MORs is that there isn’t one Barton ATZ infringement amongst them.

(*I haven’t looked at the Heli ones)
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1801531
I see the Airspace & Safety Initiative has issued another reference ...


The ASI is a simple portal for various parties to inform and get pilots to do X,Y,Z, while seemingly not taking much Initiative to properly address and tackle the cause of the real underlying Airspace and Safety issues.
T67M, ls8pilot liked this
#1801590
Fright Level wrote:The Farnborough one is particularly galling. A wholesale robbery of a big chunk of airspace, some larger/faster planes move across to Fairoaks and then Farnborough wonder why there are infringements. Perhaps they should hold up a mirror instead of a magnifying glass?


And then they delay the post implementation review because there has'nt been enough traffic!

Sir Humphrey would be proud...... :)
Captain Fourbars, Hawkwind, flybymike and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1801637
I remember many years ago, maybe on this forum, maybe not, that the question was posed as to why Jersey airspace was Class A, and the answer seemed to be that it was the only way of getting French military to recognise it and keep out or get a clearance. I wonder if that is a factor now?
I also read a (paper) report from another EU country, an official study on why infringement figures were so high, and it was really good reading, and I genuinely thought it was going to get somewhere, it was really well written and set up great foundations on various issues (eg pilot nav training) and went into measured data and lots more, then suddenly I realised there was only one page left.... I turned it to reveal the conclusion section, and not even a page full, just a paragraph.... infringement figures were far too high because far too many pilots entered controlled airspace without having a clearance......
#1801641
Irv Lee wrote:I remember many years ago, maybe on this forum, maybe not, that the question was posed as to why Jersey airspace was Class A, and the answer seemed to be that it was the only way of getting French military to recognise it and keep out or get a clearance. I wonder if that is a factor now?
I also read a (paper) report from another EU country, an official study on why infringement figures were so high, and it was really good reading, and I genuinely thought it was going to get somewhere, it was really well written and set up great foundations on various issues (eg pilot nav training) and webt into measured data and lots more, then suddenly I realised there was only one page left.... I turned it to reveal the conclusion section, and not even a page full, just a paragraph.... infringement figures were far too high because far too many pilots entered controlled airspace without having a clearance......


This year, Channel Islands Airspace has seen eight notable infringements - the most we have seen for some time. Half of which have been French Military. Oddly, I sent @James Chan the 2020 infringements map last week.
Irv Lee liked this
#1801673
There have been some excellent contributions here, but anyone who starts with the assumption that the current airspace structure is reasonable and the current method of apportioning airspace is fair, equitable or reasonable does not get my support.

By extension any strict punishment of any infringer is also unreasonable. In many cases airspace is infringed because it is "designed" on a piecemeal basis by people who do not use it. Therefore no thought has been given to make the recreational pilot's task of avoiding the proliferation of control zones an easy one. As I understand it many who draw up airspace changes are controllers whose main desire is to make controlling (of the aircraft within the controlled airspace) easy. All too often "infringement hot-spots" really mean areas where the airspace designers really didn't think about the impact on those on the outside and have badly failed in their responsibilities to recreational pilots trying their best to avoid the dogs breakfast of blue lines invented by a theoretical genius. The practical implications of the blue lines never seem to count for very much.

Do recreational pilots accept many additional track miles, go a completely different direction, or attempt to make the best of a really bad situation imposed upon them (us). This is particularly true around London, especially going North to South.

I have managed not to infringe recently (I believe) but sometimes only due to luck as circumstances lead me to get rather closer than I intended. Should I submit some kind of near miss report - of course I should in any properly functioning no blame culture interested in improving outcomes. Is there any kind of reporting mechanism to use for nearly airspace infringements? [Stupid question really...]
I have no confidence that the CAA airspace policy people would do anything with the information if it was reported/collected.

If I am accused of infringing I do not intend to engage at all - as far as I can see there is no benefit to me at all in doing so. I will keep my transponder on, I will ask for a crossing clearance when possible but I will also try to insist that any airspace introduced considers those on the outside as much as the chosen few on the inside.
Captain Fourbars, rdfb liked this
#1801709
There have been some excellent contributions here, but anyone who starts with the assumption that many who draw up airspace changes are controllers whose main desire is to make controlling (of the aircraft within the controlled airspace) easy is, does not get my support.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1801733
At the risk of sounding, as ever, like a stuck record, this is a multi-faceted problem that will only ever be solved by addressing all of the issues, however unpalatable. In no particular order they are, Pilot Competence, Airspace Design and Management, the Training and Testing Regime, all of which contribute to this issue.

We all know this. It’s blisteringly obvious.

My beef with the current approach to solving the problem is that it is underpinned by what looks suspiciously like blind narrow-mindedness and stubbornness. Given the amount of time and effort applied, there is really no longer any excuse for this.
T67M, AlanM, Ben K and 3 others liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 54