Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
#1837163
DaveW I explained why not. As this thread demonstrates putting forward one possible way of doing things differently is one thing, getting those who make the decisions is another. Someone said stop the chat, tell us how you think it could be done better - I did. The challenge is, is it better. If it is and you are involved with the process it is logical you take it forward, if it isnt better then bin it. We really need to stop these posts designed to try and make people look stupid and be constructive, with those who are positioned to do so to take the best of the discussion. :lol: The Pipster is on the board at GASCo, and doubtless as our preeminent safety organisation they are as keen as anyway to assess whether there is a better way of delivering the infringement response material. If they believe theirs is already the best, so be it, and as I have said. My opinion is it isnt, and I have said so. Its called listening to ideas, and really isnt as difficult as some seem determined to make it for reasons presumably only known to themselves. :lol:
#1837167
IMCR wrote:
Could you give an example of a change you think would achieve this?

In what way would it do so?


Simply more emphasis on the potential for infringements in the airspace design stage rather than following up post implementation to see if the design was subsequently responsible for contributing to any increase in infringements. There is probably more emphasis put on the occasional aircraft flying over Mrs Upset’s back garden at 5,000ft on a low power low drag low noise approach than poor GA pilot Blogs trying to decipher the fifth tiny airspace step down fillet that they need to avoid in the space of ten miles.

And robustly following up on any airspace access promises made during the implementation process. If pilots are to be penalised for infringing, then ANSPs should be transparently penalised also if they do not keep their side of the bargain. That probably means in their wallet, with any fines/funds raised going back to GA.

It seems to me you are in part referring to transitting traffic. In what way are these the cause of (most) infringements.


No. I’m suggesting better designed airspace allows more traffic to operate within it. More traffic able to operate within may mean less traffic operating on the close periphery outside with the potential to inadvertently infringe, or may free ATC capacity to provide a better service outside.

Far to many talk the talk, happy to bicker (as I put it), but not prepared to actually do anything but defend their patch. (and if they truly believe there is nothing to be done, fine by me)


Ask not what your GA organisation can do for you, but what you can do for your GA organisation.
kanga liked this
#1837195
Mike some very good points indeed.

I am afraid we shall have to disagree on the last. Most of the organisations are very protective of their patch. They dont embrace ideas that are counter to the way things are. As has been said before, they dont work together which is why they are so splintered. As I say, I wish it were not so, but I know how it is. Just look for yourself at this thread. If an idea is put forward no one engages in whether or not it is a better approach. The usual suspects, the usual messages, where is your idea, you put one forward, and it is then summarised totally inaccurately. Then you are told its been all done before. Then, why dont you go beat down doors, and so on. These people know exactly what they are doing. I rant on but it doesnt actually bother me, I have understood for some time how it works in GA. So I enjoy the discussion and attempting to advance a few ideas, and thats it.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837203
IMCR wrote:DaveW I explained why not.

Have you? I can't see it. All I see is you saying you don't have the contacts that National organisations do.

IMCR wrote:As this thread demonstrates putting forward one possible way of doing things differently is one thing, getting those who make the decisions is another.


You seem to have many untested ideas for improvement, and express them strongly; if your obstacle to putting those ideas to those that can make a difference is because you are not currently volunteering to represent on behalf of an organisation that has the ears you seek then... I propose that your solution is obvious.

After all, @Pipster did not spring fully formed from his mother's womb with a GASCo (or LAA) t-shirt on and membership card in hand. He went to them and offered to help.

I could do the same (except I don't have all the solutions and in some instances don't agree with you there is actually a problem), and more relevantly for this conversation, so could you.
gaznav liked this
#1837217
DaveW - I am afraid as usual we shall have to disagree.

I have said very plainly if there is any merit in any of these ideas, the organisations that are dealing with these issues can either embrace parts of these ideas, or not, exactly as they wish. If they wished me to set them out to them in any more detail I would happily do so (they probably dont). When the CAA wrote to me asking me to attend I willingly agreed. The last time I wrote to an organisation setting out some ideas I was told not to interfere, your ideas are useless and we arent interested. As it happened they ended up completely reversing their position and we kept the IMCr. (which I dont say with any satisfaction, simply because I am not sure you have any idea how this works).

As I said, I know exactly how this works.

Therefore, also as I said, we shall have to disagree yet again, and leave it at that.

(and btw why the constant little digs - "untested ideas" - surely it is obvious they are untested ideas. Its exactly the same as I thought it was obvious the difference between conjecture and fact! They are totally untested, but I have at least tried and done my best to justify my idea on this matter).
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837222
That wasn't a dig - it was an attempt at precision in language.

If you (or I) have an idea we consider worthy of application then we need to offer it up against the real World, at which point we might find out that it needs a tweak, or even that for unforeseen reasons it won't work at all.

If we have an idea but rely on somebody else to champion it for us, we shouldn't be surprised if the outcome isn't quite as we envisaged. Had we retained involvement, we could have ensured that the core of our idea is maintained rather than being somebody else's (perhaps very different) interpretation of what we meant.

I've seen that many times in life, and I'd assume you have too. It was typically my fault for not keeping involved!
AlanM, gaznav liked this
#1837226
OK. I just seem to find every so often whenever I post you are quick to follow a particular line. Perhaps it is just in your nature to dissect the negatives. I dont have a problem with this, other than I do wish we as pilots could consider the ideas, see whether there could be some benefits, and see whether we could come to some form of collective position, rather than always being negative and dismissive. If I dont want to go banging on the doors of various organisations for the reasons I have explained, this is a matter for me, but does it diminish from a constructive conversation which those who are so positioned can either take away some parts, or not, as they wish? I would say comment on why my proposal is worse or better than what we have. Your comments would be really interesting. It might lead to a constructive conversation and lets try and stop being sensistive about mentioning certain ABC organisations. They get mentioned because they are the providers. They get mentioned because, yes, we need to be critical as well as giving praise where praise is due. This is part of the process of constructive debate.
#1837233
IMCR wrote:This is how I see a replacement infringement course working.

Initial training of Instructors and Examiners

Instructors and Examiners would “attend” an accreditation course to enable them to deliver infringement courses. This would cost a similar or lower amount to the present course delivered to pilots. Development of the course could be funded by the CAA and delivered by GASCo, or another contractor, as a webinar. It could be part funded by the instructors / examiners.

The aim would be to give a spread of accredited instructors / examiners around the country and to address the claim that in the past the standards were inconsistent. Potentially, refresher courses could be held every so many years.

Pilots who infringe

Pilots who infringe would receive a letter from the CAA asking them to make an appointment with an accredited instructor / examiner within say two weeks and notifying the CAA the appointment had been made. The CAA might then provide further details of the infringement to the instructor / examiner.

Pilot and instructor / examiner would meet on a one-to-one basis and review the specific events that resulted in the infringement and discuss the various techniques for avoiding infringing in future.

The instructor / examiner would complete a response form to the CAA, which might include a recommendation as to whether in some cases further re-training is required.

I would envisage the instructor / examiner review would be around two to three hours, and the cost would be met by the pilot.

A prescribed approach (there would be more detail than I have set out as to the matters which would by necessity be covered), with a system of accreditation and the potential for audit has not to my knowledge been tried before.

Advantages: Some money would be delivered directly back to the training environment. Instructors / examiners would be even better equipped to mitigate infringements in their everyday training, the course would address the specific needs of the pilot rather than a single approach fits all, there would be far greater freedom to depart from a standard format. For example, if a pilot had never used Sky Demon this could be examined in depth, and further and separate tuition arranged. Meetings could be arranged quickly while the event was fresh in the pilot’s mind. While not prescriptive, the pilot and instructor / examiner could agree a flight review would be helpful as a separate matter.

Disadvantages: potentially the lack of consistency, financial considerations in terms of cost reward to the instructors / examiners.

As to the more general causes of infringement, I see changes to airspace and its governance as equally important to reducing the risk in the first place, but we know there is no perfect solution at a realistic cost. Pilots will always infringe as we know from other countries with much better organised airspace than or own, and with far better ATC support. Realistically, and sadly, I see little deliverance of airspace changes and so we should concentrate on the art of the possible.

However, I also believe this is a far better solution because it places responsibility within our own community and with those at the coal face delivering flight training day in, day out, rather than organisations which may well come and go. It improves the overall awareness of infringement mitigation within the training community which works with pilots day in, day out. It localises the re-training, by which I mean an awful lot of pilots tend to fly in the same area and don’t go hundreds of miles. (I know some do). Therefore, pilots based in the South and operating in busy and constrained airspace, can be retrained with the correct focus for their immediate needs, compared and contrasted with a pilot operating in the highlands of Scotland. Finally, examiners, instructors and high hour instrument pilots for example who may well have infringed for very different and specific reasons compared with the newly qualified pilot, will not sit through hours of material which is almost certainly neither relevant or helpful, but as the one fits all course we have, is unavoidable.

Of course the devil is in the detail, and this does not address the detail. :lol:


Any thoughts whether this makes some sense?
User avatar
By ThePipster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837349
@IMCR Sorry chap but I am pretty worn out contributing to GA, several years at the LAA during the Red Tape Challenge days, several more years beating my head against a brick wall to get the first CAP1122 safety case over the finish line whilst at Sywell and much more besides.

Time for someone else to get stuck in, because in many ways it’s such a thankless task made even more thankless by anonymous individuals who post on virtual Internet forums....... :whistle:

Pipster
AlanM, gaznav, Cookie and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837354
Time for someone else to get stuck in, because in many ways it’s such a thankless task made even more thankless by anonymous individuals who post on virtual Internet forums....... :whistle:

I am not one of the cognoscenti, and as “The Pipster” you are completely anonymous to me.
JodelDavo liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837723
Mike,

If a clean sheet of paper redesign process was given the go ahead by government tomorrow, what do you think the timescale and budget would be to get to the point where it’s realised


Well I'm just a private pilot so I have absolutely no idea of the costs and timescales.

That said I'm also a software engineer, and throughout my working years have seen pieces of old software completely ripped out and re-written from scratch on large scale systems. There comes a point where it's just not worth the money to keep old things going, attempting to adding enhancements to it and having to back-test them, given its multiple layers of complexity written with old techniques, and methods combined with deteriorating availability of skills, sat on top of old technology hardware which has long been superseded. The new software is simpler to understand, faster to use and handles more capacity, and cheaper to run and enhance, and easier to hire people for.

Back to airspace perhaps there are some similarities there. From the "hardware" (like ADS-B, GNSS, data uplink/downlink and types of radar) to the "software" (weather displays, collision prediction tools), as well as the testing and training of controllers and pilots and better understanding of human factors in the design model.

It would be short term pain but for long term gain, and money that could be eventually recovered through a small levy on the price of every air passenger ticket with negligible impact to the airline business.

Perhaps a completely clean sheet of UK airspace won't be entirely necessary after all, but instead the uprooting several old "cores" designed from the last century.

Perhaps that is already in the process of being entirely redesigned via future airspace programs like LAMP, but the pandemic and the lack of flights could be a reason and less riskier approach to accelerate it quicker.

Just my thoughts.
Sooty25 liked this
#1837730
Although the pandemic has currently killed air traffic, it's obviously brought other challenges such that although it might seem the ideal time to do airspace related stuff I'm not sure how realistically achievable that would be.

Even just for the ANSP never mind all the other involved parties the process is very labour intensive, both in the talking about it/consultation/design phases and then even more so in the innumerable simulations that would be required to prototype, test and refine any proposed changes followed on by the training and greenfield competence certifications that may be required.

Possibly difficult to achieve in a sensible manner in current circumstances.

I saw five years mentioned earlier as a timescale. My own thoughts, assuming normal circumstances with no pandemic making stuff awkward, was five years at the the most optimistic I could possibly force myself to be, but likelier closer to ten if not even more. And a budget of multi hundred millions.

Once designs are proposed just the public consultations and all that they entail will drag on and on for who knows how long.
#1852467
In the latest Sky Wise email I just got I noted this line..............

If your airfield uses QFE remember to change to QNH immediately after take-off. Never fly cross-country using QFE and avoid RPS as it increases the risk of infringing.

So come on CAA, just bin RPS as of next week and instruct everyone to just set the QNH of the nearest airfield they are passing (with some guidance to do that every X miles and not call every airfield en-route).

How can it even exist with that very instruction above to avoid it?
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852472
SteveX wrote:In the latest Sky Wise email I just got I noted this line..............

If your airfield uses QFE remember to change to QNH immediately after take-off. Never fly cross-country using QFE and avoid RPS as it increases the risk of infringing.

So come on CAA, just bin RPS as of next week and instruct everyone to just set the QNH of the nearest airfield they are passing (with some guidance to do that every X miles and not call every airfield en-route).

How can it even exist with that very instruction above to avoid it?



Somebody had better let the RAF on the secret. They are prime (if not sole) proponents of RPS and QFE.
flybymike liked this
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54