Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 20
#1801865
Is there any kind of reporting mechanism for nearly airspace infringements that has any chance that the substance of the report will be taken into account in subsequent decisions about the piece of airspace. In other words if 5 people a day avoid infringing a certain piece of airspace by good fortune alone is there a mechanism for telling the owner of the airspace and the regulator so the shape/characteristics of the airspace can be amended to avoid an actual infringement? Does Chirp or Condor do that? How many people know those systems can be used for that purpose?
#1802087
David Wood wrote: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.



So how do we define pilot competence? Technically, 30 or 32 hours could get you issued with a NPPL or LAPL, the very issuing implies competence doesn't it?

I know some will argue "it's a licence to start learning with", but in actual fact, you've been declared capable and competent.

So, are PPL's too easily obtained, should courses include a minimum number of hours within controlled airspace, should biennial checks include cross countries through controlled airspace?

Or is it that airspace is just too complicated, poorly designed and poorly controlled?
#1802164
Why don’t the powers that be who design airspace take into consideration that VFR GA pilots can’t actually see the zone boundaries on the ground? CAS design has become so complicated there’s no wonder CAS infringements occur.

ATC inflexibility meaning that it’s almost certainly easier and less stress to navigate around than even try to negotiate a crossing clearance in some cases.

SO.....

Why isn’t airspace designed so that each corner is at a well recognisable landmark or town etc instead of some arbitrary point on the ground defined by a lat/long reference.

This would result in airspace being slightly bigger or smaller, but would I’m sure reduce infringements and in today’s times of airliner performance, be more than adequate.

For example, Gatwick boundary waypoints could be at Billingshurst, Haywards Heath, Dorking, Redhill, Edenbridge, Weir Wood reservoir etc. Slightly bigger/smaller but does the job.

Not everyone has a GPS, and it would seem not everyone can navigate to PPL standards these days. :roll:
#1802175
Such interesting comments here and so many of them are correct, but I do believe that the problem centres on the accumulated complexity and sheer volume of controlled airspace - which far too often equates to 'exclusion zones' - all of which appears, at least, to intentionally marginalise GA completely.

Places like Norwich and Farnborough (which was all but 'criminal' in the way it was allowed), Southend, the Manchester/Liverpool areas to the north, not to mention the 100 NM(!!!) surrounding London -Luton - Stanstead - Gatwick etc are but a few that would benefit from a total rethink. Most of GA in the SE is not only severely limited in routes but also squashed down to below 2,500' QNH. This alone creates dangerous risk to us all - which bears comparison with infringing by a mile or so on the edge of somebody's CAS.

When I think of how a place as manically busy as LAX manages to allow GA a corridor RIGHT overhead without even calling for clearances I realise our problem here is one of attitude and unreasonable protectionism for commercial traffic.

The subject of this thread is 'Infringements. Time for a new approach?'. I am SCREAMING the words: 'YES IT IS!'.
Dominie, David Wood, James Chan and 3 others liked this
#1802184
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?
G-BLEW, flybymike, defcribed and 1 others liked this
#1802191
I am SCREAMING the words: 'YES IT IS!'.


There's a reason why the USA created Flight Following and why many European countries have Radar-based joined-up FIS.
It is clever organization.

Not a mash up of the overlapping or gaping holes in lower airspace ATS units (some that are designated LARS, some that have radar that are not designated LARS) in the UK, that often only provide a Basic (non-radar) service when they're open and require you to freecall and change your squawk code every time.
JodelDavo, Boxkite, johnm and 1 others liked this
#1802192
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?


Well that’s what I teach for PPL navigation. It’s what you need to do when your electronic gizmo goes offline. But im sure you know that.

PS well done on the OBE. Well deserved.
#1802199
JodelDavo wrote:Well that’s what I teach for PPL navigation. It’s what you need to do when your electronic gizmo goes offline.


So as a reversionary mode? Not, as TrainingCom put it last year, as the Primary means of navigation? :twisted:

I'm being slightly provocative because I agree with what you're saying; but it ain't the party line. You and I know that nobody in their right mind would set about navigating around crowded airspace using 'traditional' navigation techniques, be it Ded Reckoning or Map Reading. Yet that's what we have to pretend as we teach it and test it.
flybymike liked this
#1802212
It is interesting - has anyone had an air space bust due to failure of there nav. aids I wonder?

Perhaps the iPad seized due to getting hot, or the battery ran out (heaven forbid). It might well be back to paper and pencil, but would the CAA show any interest that you had reverted to your training, or should the immediate action be a call to D and D, if you are to hope for any sympathy. Of course in all this you may well be legally non transponding.

I would almost go as far as to say for any long distance cross country flights OCAS, I cant imagine anyone would do the trip without something like Skdemon running, perhaps not the case ten years or so ago. Even a good IFR panel fit doesnt cut the mustard I suspect, unless it is a very good VMC route the whole way, or you are prepared to draw straight lines and go through anything that gets in the way.
flybymike liked this
#1802239
David Wood wrote:
JodelDavo wrote:Well that’s what I teach for PPL navigation. It’s what you need to do when your electronic gizmo goes offline.


So as a reversionary mode? Not, as TrainingCom put it last year, as the Primary means of navigation? :twisted:

I'm being slightly provocative because I agree with what you're saying; but it ain't the party line. You and I know that nobody in their right mind would set about navigating around crowded airspace using 'traditional' navigation techniques, be it Ded Reckoning or Map Reading. Yet that's what we have to pretend as we teach it and test it.


Easy following a line when all the electronics are working, but once the batteries run out or it gets too hot, what are they going to do then? Party line or not, pilots have to know how to navigate by using a chart and compass as well as be able to follow a magenta line.. Students are taught how to use GPS, but they need to know how to navigate by chart first! Isn't that what Ex18 is all about?

(and yes, I use Skydemon 75% of the time, but I can still nav by chart and compass because that's how I was taught).
#1802244
as anyone had an air space bust due to failure of there nav. aids I wonder?


Doubt it, but I'd suspect people have had many infringements due to the:
1) Poor placement of them (e.g. BNN on the Luton CTR corner as opposed to being centered on the aerodrome)
2) Poor reception of them (e.g. made to fly below 3000ft with no chance of a clearance above)
3) Lack of awareness of their limitations (e.g. why airways are 10nm wide: to account for up to -/+5nm en-route track error).

Anyway NAVAIDs are from the last century. GNSS is more accurate.
#1802254
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?


It's a lot easier to fly VFR looking out of the window, cross-checking the GPS from time to time.

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 did wonder with EC and GPS why windows on light aircraft were still necessary for VFR. :D
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 20