Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1815829
I have to admit to being slightly nervous at crossing a UK Class D for the first time without any form of communication, never mind a clearance (Solent in this case). However well you read the NOTAMs, checked the time, triple checked the radio was set to the correct frequency and made blind calls, etc., you just had that ever-present thought that you’d come face to face with a commercial jet or an infringement letter would be in the post soon after the transit.

Iceman 8)
#1815830
Marvin wrote:Perhaps one might be encouraged to listen to their ATIS.

From the AIP - ATIS information available by telephone externally on 01446-729319.

There's that plus the fact all RTF calls to ATC are recorded hence if you are subsequently 'accused' of infringing their airspace, the evidence is there that you tried to make contact with them.
By law, all recorded ATC conversations MUST be kept for at least 30 days before being recorded over.
#1815833
That's CYA and avoiding the opportunity to anticipate user issues as well as delivering a proactive means of maximising airspace availability.

Is it inevitable that it is the pilot that must anticipate (listen to the ATIS) rather than the ANSP (set up an autoresponder)?

If the piloting action is the same in either case (make a call on the published frequency), then that will minimise the opportunity for aircrew error.

An autoresponder would seem worth considering, rather than dismissing, I'd have thought. Particularly since there is a body of evidence outside the UK that shows the concept can works well.
Stampe liked this
#1815835
Iceman wrote:I have to admit to being slightly nervous at crossing a UK Class D for the first time without any form of communication, never mind a clearance (Solent in this case).

I can identify with the nervousness. I experience it when flying through the Highland restricted areas which are NOTAM'd active. What if they forgot, or there was a tecnical hitch? It's not a great consolation for coming face to face with a couple of Typhoons doing 450kts. :shock: :D
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stampe, Iceman liked this
#1815837
“I (and many other local pilots) cannot risk infringement action so avoid the airspace when ATC is closed.”

That sadly sums up the febrile atmosphere created by current incumbents of the dreadful CAA.
Chevron the CAA actively withhold any evidence that might aid an alleged infringers defence.This is a well established fact and a major reason that trust between the GA and ATC communities has broken down! Stampe
#1815842
Stampe wrote:That sadly sums up the febrile atmosphere created by current incumbents of the dreadful CAA.

Only the other week, once airborne, I advised a pilot I had just been talking to on the ground that I could not see his ADS-B and asked if he could see my ADS-B out. On being told he didn't have his switched on my conclusion was he was nervous of infringing a restricted area.
Stampe liked this
#1815851
Dave W wrote:That's CYA and avoiding the opportunity to anticipate user issues as well as delivering a proactive means of maximising airspace availability.

Is it inevitable that it is the pilot that must anticipate (listen to the ATIS) rather than the ANSP (set up an autoresponder)?

If the piloting action is the same in either case (make a call on the published frequency), then that will minimise the opportunity for aircrew error.

An autoresponder would seem worth considering, rather than dismissing, I'd have thought. Particularly since there is a body of evidence outside the UK that shows the concept can works well.

Is such a system actually approved by the CAA?
#1815856
Approvals are not pickled in aspic. If it isn't, I am sure it could be - given due willing. It is hardly unprecedented in Europe.

We (and I mean everybody, pilots and ANSPs alike) should surely be looking for ways to make things easier and safer, not finding excuses to avoid pragmatic change simply because things aren't immediately "approved".
Stampe liked this
#1815860
chevvron wrote:Is such a system actually approved by the CAA?


It was set up on the NATS TC London TMA frequencies as part of the Sudden Loss Project - instructing pilots to call xxx.xxx frequency with callsign only. (Put on the frequencies with a passcode)

So yes, why not?

As an aside, we have “JERSEY AIRPORT IS CLOSED FOR OPERATIONS” on our ATIS when closed. (01534 446301). Rennes Cotentin take responsibility for our CTR/CTA airspace which reverts to Class G, Class E (lower airways) and Class D (above FL115).
#1815864
Dave W wrote:Approvals are not pickled in aspic. If it isn't, I am sure it could be - given due willing. It is hardly unprecedented in Europe.

We (and I mean everybody, pilots and ANSPs alike) should surely be looking for ways to make things easier and safer, not finding excuses to avoid pragmatic change simply because things aren't immediately "approved".


Absolutely. Regulators like EASA practice a Risk-Based Oversight. Almost anything can get approved compared to many years ago. It is almost always down to the ANSP/Operator.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Risk-based_Oversight
G-BLEW, Dave W liked this
#1815957
gasman wrote:Durham Tees Valley have been notaming short ATC closures for over a year. I asked an ATCO there whether the class D airspace remained active ? His reply : ‘that’s one for the lawyers to decide’
I (and many other local pilots) cannot risk infringement action so avoid the airspace when ATC is closed.


Can I suggest that every pilot who is actually inconvenienced by going round complains via the CAA access to airspace form every time you're inconvenienced? Because closing ATC and not NOTAMing a reversion to class G is exactly the same as a transit refusal, and the CAA already have a mechanism to track this. We should at least help them gather accurate statistics, and by doing this you'd be doing your part in reducing these occurrences.

If at planning stage you plan a route round and never actually call, it's still a transit refusal via NOTAM in my book.

I think the form is "FCS 1521" but I'm not sure. Edit: it's FCS 1522 - thanks Dave W!
Last edited by rdfb on Wed Dec 23, 2020 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob P, tomtytom, Stampe and 3 others liked this