[Pete L]

I'm not sure we've been able to see the right dataset yet, but I would have expected a sharp rise in infringements following the introduction of CAIT and a slow reduction due to hours flown reducing and the continuing take up of moving map. Last time I looked at any graphs it did seem that risk bearing infringements had reduced.

[IMCR]

Is it just me, but I have some data that would suggest flying in the last three months is considerably down, especially people going any distance, and of course for obvious reasons. I think there is also some evidence that it is the more experienced pilot that has been doing more of the flying hours in the community.

Is it just me therefore that finds it odd that in the last three months CTA infringements are not significatnly different from the same period last year?

I am not sure at what point it will need to be accepted that the current policy is really not having any impact.

Do we just continue to grind on with the same approach, and if, for example in say two or three years time the numbers are running at a similiar level where do we go from there?

Are we actaully expecting to see at some point the number falling with a real statistical significance, and have any goals been set?

[Oldfart]

A recent flight mentoring a low houred but competent PPL, gave me a lesson on how difficult our procedures have become. And how easily infringements can/will occur in times of high workload.
A trip into Blackbushe for fuel, then onwards through the Farnborough ( FAB) area to the IOW for fish and chips, in an IFR equipped SEP.
My colleague studied all the possible routes, heights, and noise pitfalls for joining at Blackbushe, from the multiple pages of briefing.
Joining dead side, avoid noise sensitive areas, other aircraft ahead in circuit, so keep spacing, but be careful not to extend downwind, and and annoy the burgers of Hartley Witney, or perhaps infringe the ridiculously small LFA, with all the resulting CAA heavy handed penalties he has read about in the aviation press.
Promptly refuelled, off to the IOW and ready for departure, and although well briefed about FAB routings, a clearance given at the holding point worthy of an IFR flight! (I have an IR)
Goes something like, " Farnborough clears XXXXX after takeoff ,to VRP XXX (not the one we had expected) not above 2000ft. Call FAB on XXXX and transponderXXX. On reaching VRP XXX hold NE and await onward clearance" Read back correctly after a couple of prompts, and reprogramming the map/avionics/I Pad.
I had told hm to contact FAB ASAP when airborne, but of course that's prevented until clear of the ATZ.
The actual handling subsequently by FAB ATC was friendly and relatively straightforward for my now stressed aviator.
(I didn't want to complicate matters and perhaps mention that as the Metar was broken at 1700 ft., perhaps SERA rules 1000 ft clear of cloud, and fly not above 700ft. or special VFR ? But, ATC happily cleared us at 1500 ft)
At all times a friendly and efficient ATC by Blackbushe and FAB, but not a trip to be attempted without the trusty iPad/Skydemon.
In my opinion far too complicated, and a heavy workload for an average PPL.
I know we could have avoided the whole area, but at the FAB ATCOs presentation I attended at White Waltham many months ago, they made the upcoming airspace grab procedures sound all so simple!
As for navigating this mish mash of airspace, as the designers obviously intended, with a half mil topo and finding various similar motorway junctions, ponds in villages, and castles in a forest, in a heavily forested area.
Fantasy land!
I can't wait for the upcoming adjacent Brize/Oxford proposals to become reality, with 16 separate airspace blocks with differing bases and tops.
Infringement city!!

[Human Factor]

...with all the resulting CAA heavy handed penalties he has read about in the aviation press.

Times may be moving on. There's an interesting article in the "other" aviation press this month and some accompanying stuff going on in the background.

[IMCR]

Oldfart - an interesting write up. It is my impression that a lot of the pilots on here are very experienced, and inevitably some talk a good talk. We should ask ourselves what the average PPL can cope with - and I dont even mean those that have just qualified, or perhaps those that have IR's and multis etc. I mean the chap who has always flown maybe 30 hours a year, doesnt often go any great distance, but enjoys going further afield sometimes. If you like the bucket of experience is half full.

I recounted a recent trip pretty much the length of the UK, all VFR. Inevitably I was told not a problem, draw a straight line and negotiate anything which gets in the way, which infact is what I usually do. I think we can easily underestimate how problematical that has now become for most pilots. It is all fine and dandy when everything is running according to plan, but as you indicated as soon as a few things get thrown at you, the plan can start to fall apart very quickly. There will be those I have no doubt who will say the plan should accomodate these eventualities. The reality is over this distance, it cant, it is almost impossible to predict when things may depart from the plan. Weather is the most significant issue of course. We can fly only on perfect CAVOK, but then we would almost never go anywhere. However, even when the weather looks reasonable over long distance it may not be good enough for VFR on the planned route, and as soon as you start a potentially large diversion aound weather it can all start to fall apart very quickly. Skydemon or equivalent will go a long way to getting you out of trouble BUT you really must be totally at ease with the software, flying the aircraft and communicating. It is easy to underestimate the skills that need to come together so that bit of airspace doesnt bite.

Now, I am not making excuses, simply observing that for the average PPL flying single pilot and an aircraft that is lacking in automatics the piloting is a lot harder that multi crew with all the bells and whistles operating in the sytem, and yet the PPL has far less training, and, importantly way way less help from Air Traffic, but will be penalised to a greater extent when it goes wrong.

The pilot may be at fault but so are an awful lot of the other components that should make up the system.

God forbid there is ever an accident but I do suppose I wonder if the press and the public had any idea how little positive control is excercised by air traffic when required they would be appalled, and might indeed question why are air traffic services are so fragmented and profit motivated and why the regulator is more prepared to paper over the real cracks by devising a system that is intended to make out it is GA that is irresponsible.

[Spamcan Defender]

if I had to read dozens, maybe hundreds of pilot infringement reports, I'd probably get a bit grouchy.

Hmmmm. If I was the guy in charge and had to read hundreds of such reports, year after year, with no obvious improvement in sight, I might also be asking myself: is there not a better way?

OK, hows this for a "better way"...and a very unique one at that....

Why not make the whole UK airspace Class A and make every flight IFR with all pilots instrument rated. That would raise flying standards overnight and everything would be under positive control and separated..

Win-win by my reckoning....

Spamcan

[IMCR]

Not really that bad an idea - should finish off GA quickly rather than slow and drawn out.

[chipmeisterc]

Because we surely fly for the 'journey' not the destination and it all gets a bit dull if you have to spend it all being told which straight lines to fly in!

Another future alternative -

Ditch airspace altogether, it's an archaic principle.
Make adsb mandatory for all.
Take the pilots/atc out of commercial traffic routing and allow aircraft to route autonomously in realtime with straight line routing to destination and continuous detection and resolution of routing conflicts between flights. (Or have a central route optimiser and planner that can do the same thing + continually learn how to do it better)
Apply the same to drones.
Leave the GA traffic to do as we please, with GA to GA separation being avoided manually by adsb in/out and GA to CAT seperation being performed by the commercial traffic autonomously.

Much more efficient routing for commercial traffic.
Much larger playground for ga.
No need for the majority of classes of airspace.
Win win

[James Chan]

Why not make the whole UK airspace Class A and make every flight IFR with all pilots instrument rated. That would raise flying standards overnight and everything would be under positive control and separated.. Win-win by my reckoning.

You joke here, but about 12 years ago some "ATCers" on another rumor forum seemed dead serious about it. Thank goodness those characters had since left.

[FlarePath]

If it was all "Class A" it wouldn't need a class would it?

[IMCR]

There was a solent / southampton controller on this thread recently, who made some usef ul contributions.

If the gentlemen is still around, and of course if anyone else wishes to comment, it is being reported that four pilots in another light aircraft were all witnesses to a conversation with either solent / southampton in which the aircraft infringed the base of CAS by no more than 200 feet and was told by the controller that the pilot had infringed and this was a reportable infringement in aggressive terms.

If true is this either acceptable or policy? Have we crossed some rubicon were it has just become acceptable to chastise a pilot in this way in flight?

If true I am afraid in my book this reflects very poorly on the zone and I would be inclined to make a formal complaint to the CAA.

[Mike Tango]

Both sides of the r/t can have bad days that they may regret afterwards.

I would caution any current NATS employee, bearing in mind the social media policy of the company, to get involved in any debate regarding specific reported incidents and they shouldn’t be expected to.

[James Chan]

which the aircraft infringed the base of CAS by no more than 200 feet and was told by the controller that the pilot had infringed ... in aggressive terms.

And yet a level bust (following a clearance) by no more than 200 feet would be "acceptable".

[IMCR]

Both sides of the r/t can have bad days that they may regret afterwards.

I would caution any current NATS employee, bearing in mind the social media policy of the company, to get involved in any debate regarding specific reported incidents and they shouldn’t be expected to.

Indeed.

and it may well be inappropriate fot a current NATS employee to comment with respect to a specific case, but this does not exclude generalised comments.

Also, Mike, and here is the dicotomy, your policy is sound, but only if the dicotomy is recognised with respect to the pilot.

I have to say in my opinion it is time for Mr Gratton to be removed from post. Whatever the rights or wrongs, any responsible organisation will realise when there is this much controvesy with regards to Mr Gratton's actions and the policy for which as department head he must accept responsibility it is time overdue for a fresh face, if for no other reason than to take a fresh look at this. As we all know he can be placed elsewhere, I am not suggesting being dismissed or sacked simply he has served his time in this particular post and is at risk of being unable to address the competing arguments. This is my opinion. Mr Gratton should stand down or be removed.

[Mike Tango]

Indeed.

and it may well be inappropriate fot a current NATS employee to comment with respect to a specific case, but this does not exclude generalised comments.

Also, Mike, and here is the dicotomy, your policy is sound, but only if the dicotomy is recognised with respect to the pilot.

I have to say in my opinion it is time for Mr Gratton to be removed from post. Whatever the rights or wrongs, any responsible organisation will realise when there is this much controvesy with regards to Mr Gratton's actions and the policy for which as department head he must accept responsibility it is time overdue for a fresh face, if for no other reason than to take a fresh look at this. As we all know he can be placed elsewhere, I am not suggesting being dismissed or sacked simply he has served his time in this particular post and is at risk of being unable to address the competing arguments. This is my opinion. Mr Gratton should stand down or be removed.

My policy? Wasn't aware I held any particular policy or indeed was in any sort of position to influence a policy.

I think it's unreasonable to expect NATS' employees to pop up and answer to anonymous inquisitors, especially when so doing may be going against terms and conditions of employment. They are of course free to do so if they wish, after weighing up the potential pros and cons of so doing, but it certainly shouldn't be expected. And nor is it really for someone with no knowledge of these T&Cs to decide for them what may or may not be allowable. Of course NATS' press office is available H24 for comment on recent reported incidents if you so wish.

I'm really not sure what to make of your last paragraph? I have no idea who you are, aside from I believe you post on similar related threads on different forums (some of which may have a far looser association to facts and truth than this one) with a different user name. Am I or anyone else reading meant to be impressed?