Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
#1837113
johnm wrote:A clean sheet of paper might well be cheaper and easier for all concerned, but that requires that all airspace is controlled and allocated by one specialist body. That won't happen for a lifetime, so modernisation will merely be a variation on the dog's breakfast menu.....


I would argue that within the current dog’s breakfast much could still be done better with regards infringements. Via a more robust requirement with regards airspace design and infringements within CAP1616 and an acceptance that a slightly larger overall volume of airspace will likely reduce its complications.

Reduced complication makes it easier for the ATC agency involved in the day to day operation so more capacity within the airspace for transitory traffic, and reduced complication likely makes it easier for pilots to navigate around or in proximity to.

Even within the current system it doesn’t have to be the way it is.
johnm liked this
#1837115
Mike Tango wrote:I would argue that within the current dog’s breakfast much could still be done better with regards infringements. Via a more robust requirement with regards airspace design and infringements within CAP1616 and an acceptance that a slightly larger overall volume of airspace will likely reduce its complications.


Could you give an example of a change you think would achieve this?

In what way would it do so?

It seems to me you are in part referring to transitting traffic. In what way are these the cause of (most) infringements.
#1837123
It's always amazed me that airspace in the UK is generally designed using straight lines between waypoints and blocks of airspace. For the VFR pilot who might not have GPS or can't see these imaginary boundary lines in the air, it relies on accurate visual navigation and the relationship between the imaginary boundary line and nearby ground features..

SO.... Why can't airspace designers design controlled airspace using well recognisable ground features, even if it does make the airspace bigger? It won't affect the IFR traffic as they are generally using a VOR/ADF/GNSS or being radar vectored. For this very reason I doubt IFR pilots infringe much, if at all...
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837125
For this very reason I doubt IFR pilots infringe much, if at all...


They do infringe, usually level busts....though other clearance misses are not unknown the transition from controlled airspace when landing somewhere outside can also cause some issues hence the resentment of being "dumped at Detling"
#1837126
JodelDavo wrote:SO.... Why can't airspace designers design controlled airspace using well recognisable ground features, even if it does make the airspace bigger?


We better start building loads of motorway / major A roads / railways or dig canals.
I reckon it would be even longer then the clean sheet redesign (5 years would be my guess for Mike Tango)
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837128
I flew Gloucester to Fowlmere today VFR didn't look at a single ground feature for navigation purposes
#1837131
As to airspace, JodelDavo, it would be interesting to discuss what factors actually contribute to infringements as opposed to frustrates pilots.

It frustrates pilot navigating along the south coast around the I of W, it frustrates pilot transitting through the Manchester zone, Southend was / is becoming a frustration, and as if of course the SE bottleneck (Gatwick, Heathrow). These are all enormous blocks of airspace which are also complicated and make VRF routing especially difficult and requiring great care. Often there is no support from ATC due to controller workload.

However, frustration is one thing. My own view is that it is very difficult to effectively redesign this airspace and the problems stem far more from the sheer density of commercial airports in these areas. Doubtless the airpsace could be tinkered with, but would this be meaningful?

I suspect many pilots these days dont get frustrated by transits. With a few exceptions ATC has become a lot better at accomodating these.

The infringement problem is that pilots attempt to navigate these bigs tracks of airspace and get caught out. They get caught out because bases drop sometimes in unexpected places, they dont plan their descents early enough, they wander a bit when VFR bimbling and suddenly find themselves at 2,700 when a mile to the south the base of CAS was 3,500, they get caught out by distractions (weather, other aircraft), they attempt to navigate visually (and I take your point, but you had still better be very good doing this even if the airspace was constructed around better features in the complex airspace of the south east for example) and various othere reasons, including really poor pilot craft sometimes.

These are the real reasons behind infringements I think. With good planning, a moving map that you really know how to use, almost certainly a reasonable level of currency, and unrelenting discipline (I think the days of ad hoc VFR bimbling in some of these areas, where you set off with no particular plan is asking for trouble for all but the most experienced) they can mostly be avoided.

However I know of very experienced instructors, really high hours instrument pilots and others who have ended up at GASCo. On the whole these are all very short incursions, that are quickly corrected, but of course no longer go unreported nor, it would seem, are undeserving of a trip to GASCo.

If we knew exactly where all the infringements are occuring, then we might have a better idea of some of the reasons to the extent these could be related to airspace, but I still dont think we do.

As ever, we need to identify the real problem first. Why do most infringements occur? We can then address what system changes might help, but I suspect arguing for a redesign or air space is just far to simplistic.

My interest has been the response after an infringment occurs and so we also need to decide whether the response to an infringement is appropriate because you can bet they will still occur whatever redesign takes place. For example, they occur in the States and many would argue their airspace is far better organised than ours, AND their ATC support of GA is way better. I have argued our response is not helpful and set out earlier why, and how it could be improved. Improvement at this end also helps because surely the key is also to educate pilots, both pilots who have infringed, but also everyone of us who sees an instructor, from time to time for whatever reason.

I fly with an instructor every year (you are required to with a multi rating / instrument) and this is a very good opportunity to review CAS, and how best to avoid infringements. Yet the better the instructor is versed in the importance of this aspect of piloting these days, and the current techniques to secure success, it may well not get covered as well as it could.

It seems ot me we bicker amoung ourselves, and all the vested interests surface (it is amazing how many on here are NATS, or CAA, or GASCo, or AOPA, - I never realised and wasnt especially bothered, until I was told who is who). It still doesnt really bother me, but I think it is a shame if (and perhaps they dont) vested interest get in the way of an honest debate of how we make this right. I dont care who is who, but I wish we focused on the arguments rather than toys out because someone thinks you are having a go at their pet organisation). :lol: :thumleft:
User avatar
By ThePipster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837134
Evening all,

Since the 'bickering' as it has been termed has died down and the obsession with finger pointing has abated, the past few pages have delivered some good constructive ideas along with valid observations made.

However, it looks like we are now doing our umpteenth lap of the same old buoy and nothing in the non-Internet reality in which we fly, has moved forward one iota.

It is time for someone to grasp the nettle, collate their good ideas and present them in a professional manner to the DfT, the APPG, the CAA board, the Secretary of State or anyone that might care enough to listen.

Any volunteers?

Pipster
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837136
johnm wrote:I flew Gloucester to Fowlmere today VFR didn't look at a single ground feature for navigation purposes


Really? Cant help myself, I have to ask why? I like looking out of the window... 8)

Dont get me wrong, GPS is my primary navigation tool, but aside from compass/heading checks, by looking out of the window for fun I do usually confirm that the direction its telling me to go (the holy grail magenta line) and the features on the moving map do indeed match up with what I see out of that same window... and dont tell anyone, but just for laughs when Im bored on long legs I might actually dial in a VOR so I can prove to myself I can remember how they work... :wink:

Regards, SD..
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837137
Oh I did look out of the window for traffic and to enjoy the view but not for navigation. Interestingly I saw none of the traffic called by either Brize or Luton and none of those were seen by Skyecho, a few were seen by Skyecho but none were a factor.
#1837140
skydriller wrote:
johnm wrote:I flew Gloucester to Fowlmere today VFR didn't look at a single ground feature for navigation purposes


Really? Cant help myself, I have to ask why? I like looking out of the window... 8)

Regards, SD..


Couldnt agree more. It is all about looking out the window. This is the bit I like best.

I also think with a pad on your knee it works very well, with an occasional glance to check all is well. In fact I think it often gives a perspective which the moving map doesnt.

It is also often rather beautiful.

People ask me why I dont go high, get above the weather etc - simple, I say, I enjoy the scenery.

Seems to me when you ignore those who just like to bicker there is a lot of concensus especially from those who have no vested interest.

I am glad to see this as it is my experience talking to other pilots who seem to just get more and more frustrated at the way they are patronised, when we dont need patronising, we need to be treated as professionals, which most of us are, who take our flying very seriously.
#1837143
PS Pipster, you are one who could take this forward! Either you agree the present post infringement response is the best we can do (in which case there is nothing for you to do), or you dont, in which case from what you say you are well positioned to do something about it. There are other ideas. Either you agree with them (nothing more to do), or you dont.

There are others on here who are in the clubs, organisations and departments I have mentioned. They know who they are, and so do others. These are the people who could take some of these very good ideas forward rather than leaving it to others to open doors which is always far more difficult. There are people who from NATS and NATS connections. They know their position on infringements and the current response. They know where the big problem spots are and they have a wealth of information about every infringement which occurs in their domain. There are more than enough now to desentize the data, and avoid the old chestnut of oh yes data protection we cant possibly give you this information. And the CAA, they wanted constructive talks with some on here, and then when it came to it nothing happened. Zero, zilch, PMs sent and nothing done. You know who you are. If you really think you have the perfect response, fine, nothing more to be done.

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

It has all be done before. We had a real set to over the old IMCr (IRR) so I know exactly how this works and what it took to end up keeping it when there were far to many who had the rating buried in all its forms - full IR or nothing. I can assure you, I know.
#1837145
IMCR wrote:PS Pipster, you are one who could take this forward! Either you agree the present post infringement response is the best we can do (in which case there is nothing for you to do), or you dont, in which case from what you say you are well positioned to do something about it. There are other ideas. Either you agree with them (nothing more to do), or you dont.

There are others on here who are in the clubs, organisations and departments I have mentioned. They know who they are, and so do others. These are the people who could take some of these very good ideas forward rather than leaving it to others to open doors which is always far more difficult. There are people who from NATS and NATS connections. They know their position on infringements and the current response. They know where the big problem spots are and they have a wealth of information about every infringement which occurs in their domain. There are more than enough now to desentize the data, and avoid the old chestnut of oh yes data protection we cant possibly give you this information. And the CAA, they wanted constructive talks with some on here, and then when it came to it nothing happened. Zero, zilch, PMs sent and nothing done. You know who you are. If you really think you have the perfect response, fine, nothing more to be done.

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)

It has all be done before. We had a real set to over the old IMCr (IRR) so I know exactly how this works and what it took to end up keeping it when there were far to many who had the rating buried in all its forms - full IR or nothing. I can assure you, I know.


I am afraid sitting back and challenging others (unless you really believe it is all as good as it can be) doesnt wash. If you are in a position to do something about it, please do so, the more so if you really support GA more than whatever your own vested interest is.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837155
IMCR wrote:PS Pipster, you are one who could take this forward!

Why can't you, too? Any one of us could, I guess, if we feel we have the solution.

Making it somebody else's problem after having shouted about how you would do it is just sloping shoulders.
IMCR wrote:Far to many talk the talk, happy to bicker (as I put it), but not prepared to actually do anything.

Indeed.
AlanM liked this
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54