Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 20
#1803147
What costs more
- airspace replan of the whole of the SE of England
- all the consultations, reprint of charts, continued infringements and TCAS alerts

Or


- having a more controllers to allow a joined up flight following style service for VFR traffic in the SE of England
#1803169
marioair wrote:What costs more
- airspace replan of the whole of the SE of England
- all the consultations, reprint of charts, continued infringements and TCAS alerts

Or


- having a more controllers to allow a joined up flight following style service for VFR traffic in the SE of England


It depends who's going to have to pay. Unfortunately, in the UK, there's not enough joined-up strategic thinking (something opposed on ideological grounds since early '80s), to prevent that being the very first question. :roll:
Last edited by kanga on Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
johnm, T67M, Captain Fourbars and 1 others liked this
#1803184
The refusal of payments argument was flawed from the very start.

I don't know of any airline passenger who would complain about paying 10p-20p more on their airfare - which would raise many millions of £ per year in needed funds for airspace modernisation and services, which adds to their safety and efficiency (as well as adding to our safety and efficiency) at the same time.
#1803198
That’s not what I meant. I meant the basis on which the GA community should lobby is NOT based on our “right to roam”.
It’ll only have traction if we can make ANSPs, CAA, NATS, Airlines and Airports understanding the gains to them of having a joined up policy which “protects them” from GA. The approach to date has been to grab a slice of Class D. We have enough data to show that infringements have not come down? And that cost is £X.
#1803207
Pete L wrote:
Tim Dawson wrote:If we are lucky enough to get a comprehensive redesign of airspace in SE England I don't think there's any reason they should do it using ground features. How many people are actually flying like that these days?


The most obvious example I have to hand is the W of the Luton Zone - for most of it, the A41 and the Euston Line are outside of it - except the SW corner. For some completely unrelated reason that corner is also an infringement hotspot.


I was Manager ATS at Luton during this Airspace Change Proposal. There were no formal objections to it, BTW. At a meeting in Kingsway, the gliding people at RAF Halton asked that the CAS boundaries be aligned with ground features which they suggested (I cannot remember what now) so that is why it is the shape it is.

The reasons much CAS is the shape it is is because attempts are made to accommodate the needs and wishes of many organisations. It could be far simpler if it were bigger.
Cub, Hawkwind liked this
#1803226
Dave W wrote:via Airspace4All, here is a recently published Airspace & Safety Initiative document:

Airspace Infringement Working Group - Report from Causal Factors Working Group 2019


I had a quick skim through, and it seems at first glance to be a bit more of the same "Piiot Error" stuff without really addressing the elephants of Airspace design and lack of joined up ATC in the UK - I need a bit more time to sit and read it properly though I noticed that it appears the chap asking for pilots for interviews to talk about their "infringement errors" on here in the past is an author.

Regards, SD..
#1803238
Never play the person but we make exception when the person puts their name on the report and in the capacity of an official position. The fact is that one of the author's is well known to many and I believe has been banded more times that I can recall from various pilot forums just about everywhere. For me this is a significant mistake and another example of the people that are involved in these jobs. Whatever are the rights or wrongs people who have upset the pilot community to this extent are not well placed to take on these roles and I am afraid it is symtomatic of people who are attracted to this "work", but actually are the very people who should not be chosen to be involved.
Irv Lee liked this
#1803257
The fundamental problem with airspace and ATS is that it is completely incoherent and the design approach is still based on large jets being able to fly circuits, which is just ridiculous. In the days of PBN and RNP the precision and arrangement of approaches for big jets is such that CTRs could be a lot smaller and then wedding cake CTA etc. be built on top and sized to integrate as one gets higher.

A good example is Brize/Oxford which could be a simple "T" shaped CTR with all traffic sequenced by Brize, other obvious ones are the London airports where the CTRs could easily lose a third of their width.
#1803263
Captain Fourbars wrote:IMCR's penultimate paragraph is the point. We can debate refining navigational skills until the cows come home but the REAL villain is the amoral theft of such massive volumes of our airspace from which GA is effectively excluded.

I may have written this before. It's the aerial equivalent of 'enclosure'.
#1803294
MikeE also came up on here recently as a PhD student who was independent of this process, or so it was said. MikeE was good enough to "defend" his involvement as I though an independent researcher. Perhaps he or someone would be good enough to now explain how these roles are compatible and how you come to sit on this committee. On the face of it I have to say it seems at odds.
#1803327
IMCR wrote:MikeE also came up on here recently as a PhD student who was independent of this process, or so it was said. MikeE was good enough to "defend" his involvement as I though an independent researcher. Perhaps he or someone would be good enough to now explain how these roles are compatible and how you come to sit on this committee. On the face of it I have to say it seems at odds.



It's an analysis of the available information (both objective and subjective from interviews etc,) with a conclusion that reflects the available information.
#1803397
IMCR wrote:MikeE also came up on here recently as a PhD student who was independent of this process, or so it was said. MikeE was good enough to "defend" his involvement as I though an independent researcher. Perhaps he or someone would be good enough to now explain how these roles are compatible and how you come to sit on this committee. On the face of it I have to say it seems at odds.


Happy to explain further. My research is entirely independent of the CAA, and indeed everything and everyone else, as I explained earlier. One of the things about PhD level research is that it cannot be conducted in a silo. It is important to obtain as wide and as deep an understanding as possible from as many sources as possible. So my research includes interviews of pilots who have infringed. It also includes discussions with other bodies and individuals. And it includes a role in the sub-group who prepare the report.

As the introduction to the report says, the group is independent of the CAA. I am not employed by the CAA and I receive no pay from them. Our work is entirely voluntary but, naturally, is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. We have access to MORs but cannot in any circumstances discuss the contents outside the context of preparing the report. The benefit to me, and why I give my time voluntarily, is because it provides that wider picture that otherwise I might miss. This is important in research, to leave no stone unturned.

Likewise my research. Everything is confidential and anonymous. No data from my interviews connects to my work on the report or goes back to the CAA. If my interviews revealed a startling insight into pilot error or infringements, would I seek to include it in the report? Of course I would, and I would advertise it through all the media I could. That is the purpose of the research, to provide insights into why pilots make errors and to find ways of helping pilots avoid them. That is why people have volunteered to take part, to help understand what happened to them with a view to helping others, but in a confidential and completely anonymised environment.

But that is entirely different to providing details of people I have spoken to or their stories to the CAA or anyone else - that would be a gross breach of confidentiality,

And, importantly, I make no secret of my voluntary work on the group. The research has approval from the UCL ethics committee and I am required to follow certain procedures, and would do so even if it wasn't required.

Firstly, I make my role on the committee clear to everyone I interview before the interview takes place and made sure they are content with that. Everyone.

Secondly, I have never made a secret of my role on the group and have mentioned it several times. Indeed, in response to a question from you on my original request for research participants (25 October 2019), I said

"I have entirely voluntarily undertaken analyses of some of these because of my interest in this area, but am subject to the same confidentiality requirements as the CAA as data processor and therefore cannot discuss or use in any other way any personal information they contain."

Hope that helps reassure you that my role as a researcher and my voluntary role analysing infringement returns are in fact complementary and compatible and there is no attempt whatsoever to confuse or mislead anyone. Happy to provide any further assurances anyone needs. This is because it is important that any doubts are dispelled so people can feel confident in research methods and outcomes .

Best wishes

Mike
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 20