Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1837679
MattL wrote:.. whizz wheels consigned to the dustbin which is where they should be in 2021


Not literally, I hope. The RAF ones were much more rugged than most civilian ones I've met, and therefore better able to withstand (ab)use by Air Cadets in Nav class. Or have whizzwheels also been taken off the Air Cadet (ATC Senior/Staff; CCF/RAF Part 2/3) syllabus now ?

[I lent my basic plastic (Sporty's) whizzwheel acquired in Canada in 1967 to a young relative starting on his PPL several years ago, so unavailable to me for my last few years of my private flying. By then I was using at least a hiker's GPS, so did not miss it, although I had always carried it in my flight bag for some reason.

I was wholly self-taught (as was then allowed) for all my PPL theory exams in both Canada and later UK. I found that my own Air Cadet grounding already covered nearly all the theory except the respective Air Laws.]
#1837699
Having had a look at all the graphics, I am a little surprised nothing was said by the controller? (fully appreciate he has no obligation to do so). Is it just me, but it looks like there was every chance of an infringement, and we have all heard ATC issue warnings in these circumstances before. I am guessing they would not have been that busy at the time.
#1837709
For all the old-timer talk of "what if your GPS fails", in 15 yrs of flying, I have encountered only one personal device failure while flying - a stopwatch for DR NAV. I bought this for my FAA checkride in early 2006 and the battery compartment was loose enough to allow the battery to dislodge and lose power - it failed during the NAV part of my checkride, so I just looked at my watch to finish. I promptly took it back for a refund after my test.

I Goggled it just now now and see the same model is still sold (don't waste your money on it; it's s***)

Image
#1837718
IMCR wrote:Having had a look at all the graphics, I am a little surprised nothing was said by the controller? (fully appreciate he has no obligation to do so). Is it just me, but it looks like there was every chance of an infringement, and we have all heard ATC issue warnings in these circumstances before. I am guessing they would not have been that busy at the time.


From the text...

Therefore, when the pilot turned onto the heading for Wellesbourne Mountford it was made too early and had put them on track towards controlled airspace. Unfortunately, at that time, there were several other aircraft that were contacting the controller; therefore the pilot could not call them.

Realising, that they were flying in an area that did not correlate with the route plan and being unable to contact Birmingham, the pilot changed their heading to south and called Distress and Diversion (D&D) on 121.500MHz. They promptly provided the pilot with a position fix and, once aware of their location, the pilot was able to navigate to Wellesbourne Mountford.


I’d speculate from the above the controller observed the infringement as the warning tool was activated, made an initial assessment of likely impact/actions required whilst engaged with one or more of the other aircraft referenced above and subsequently may well have attempted to make contact by which point the student had already left the frequency to go to D&D. The report linked does reference the controller using Mode S to obtain the callsign, but not if any calls subsequently made.

If engaged with the other aircraft mentioned, depending where they were in the volume of airspace controlled by Birmingham and exactly what the traffic situation was, the controller’s attention for the important few minutes immediately prior to the infringement may well have been directed towards a totally different area.

D&D would quite likely have put the student on one of their discreet squawks in addition to seeing the DF trace, which would have identified to the Birmingham controller the aircraft was talking to D&D, and also it’s almost certain D&D and Birmingham would have spoken to each other by landline quite promptly after the aircraft contacted and was identified by D&D. In part to then make the aircraft known traffic to Birmingham and in part to confirm whether or not any assistance would be required from Birmingham, up to and including a possible diversion inbound.

All speculation of course, but hopefully reasonable.

FWIW I thought, from the report, having found themselves in the situation they did the student performed exceptionally well. Which also suggests an overall good level of training.
#1837733
I wouldn't rely on Listening Codes, or a Basic Service, to warn of iminent infringement. A local pilot on a Basic Service with Farnborough recently, was only informed about 20 secs after he had infringed.
If you want help from ATC, ask for a Traffic Service every time.
Basic Service and "chocolate teapot" come to mind!
#1837751
T67M wrote:Whilst I agree with the uselessness of the Chocolate Teapot service, even with a Traffic Service, the chance of a pre-infringement warning is slim and certainly not guaranteed.


I'm a big fan of the 'trust but verify' principle, but I would nonetheless be a bit miffed if was in two way contact with a radar controller who didn't mention an impending infringement.

Ian
Charles Hunt, flybymike liked this
#1837760
TopCat wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:...I would nonetheless be a bit miffed if was in two way contact with a radar controller who didn't mention an impending infringement.

This would be very easy to test.


Not really sure what a test would show. I believe the default position to be pilot doesn't want to infringe, controllers want to avoid infringements. There shouldn't be any 'sides'

Ian
Dave W, kanga, AndyR and 2 others liked this
#1837765
G-BLEW wrote:
T67M wrote:Whilst I agree with the uselessness of the Chocolate Teapot service, even with a Traffic Service, the chance of a pre-infringement warning is slim and certainly not guaranteed.


I'm a big fan of the 'trust but verify' principle, but I would nonetheless be a bit miffed if was in two way contact with a radar controller who didn't mention an impending infringement.

Ian


My classic incident was through the solent zone. Happily working Bournemouth (who adjoin with no seperation, Southampton) and a bit to accustom to Southampton just picking me up with an ongoing clearance (as I had informed Bournemouth routing direct GWC). Of course I hadnt explicitly asked for a handover, and Southampton appropriately obliged (quite correctly) telling me I had infirnged their airspace.

I am pretty certain this was in the days before GASCo. Anyway I apologised and nothing more was said or came of it. :D

Certainly I didnt receive a warning from either until it was far to late.
#1837775
G-BLEW wrote:
I'm a big fan of the 'trust but verify' principle, but I would nonetheless be a bit miffed if was in two way contact with a radar controller who didn't mention an impending infringement.

Ian


Even with the best will in the world on the part of the controller I think you may be placing an unreasonable hope or expectation on them.

Flying around anywhere in a large chunk of the south east of the UK one is probably never far, in terms of time or distance, from a potential infringement. Given that one wouldn’t have 100% of the controller’s attention 100% of the time, that attention may well be elsewhere for the amount of time it takes for what was routine flight to look like it now is potentially going to infringe to the point that an infringement takes place.

I’m sure a controller would challenge if observed (but see below), just that the period of time available for the controller to observe and act their attention may be elsewhere.

Possibly also worth bearing in mind that we know pilots don’t like being unnecessarily challenged, so if the controller is observing they will also probably be considering, a) what, if anything, to say, and b) when exactly to say it.

Possible example... base of CAS 2,500ft, on a traffic service, maybe a turbulent day, pilot has reported maintaining 2,200ft on QNH, if controller observed not frequent but not infrequent deviations to 2,300ft or 2,400ft would the pilot want or expect to be challenged about the base of CAS? Would the controller be expected to notice every deviation?
#1837782
G-BLEW wrote:
TopCat wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:...I would nonetheless be a bit miffed if was in two way contact with a radar controller who didn't mention an impending infringement.

This would be very easy to test.


Not really sure what a test would show. I believe the default position to be pilot doesn't want to infringe, controllers want to avoid infringements. There shouldn't be any 'sides'

Of course that's the default position, and I am absolutely NOT talking about sides.

The hypothetical test I have in mind would show how often, on a basic service, for instance, or while maintaining a listening squawk, on a busyish day, the radar controllers are able to pay enough attention to the traffic close to the CAS boundaries, to warn them if they're likely to be about to infringe.

I've had exemplary service from Farnborough controllers, for instance, giving me friendly warnings while on a traffic service, of things like where east of CPT, the base of the TMA drops from 4500 to 3500 to 2500 in quick succession.

Likewise on a transit S-N, when they've not been busy, I've sometimes been cleared through the central bit of the F'boro zone above 3000, and they've given me a friendly reminder of the imminent boundary just north of Blackbushe where the base drops to 2500. They used to do it before their CTR as well.

I've never needed these reminders so far, but one day I may be grateful for them.

However I have no idea how likely they are to be able to give warnings to traffic on only a basic service or on a listening squawk.

The CAA is constantly telling us to maintain a listening squawk, and yet in the next breath, everyone else seems to be saying that it's a long way from being reliable if you cock it all up.

It's another one of these half-4rsed things where on one hand there's the desirable, and on the other hand there's the contractual - and a bloody great chasm between the two for people to fall into if they're unlucky.

Again, FTAOD, nothing to do with sides. I am absolutely not suggesting even a hint of 'them and us'. It's about what is practical out there. If a listening squawk is no use to man nor beast in the real world, we shouldn't be teaching students to use them - we should be teaching them to be more self-reliant and how to not cock it all up.
G-BLEW liked this
#1837787
Mike Tango wrote:Possible example... base of CAS 2,500ft, on a traffic service, maybe a turbulent day, pilot has reported maintaining 2,200ft on QNH, if controller observed not frequent but not infrequent deviations to 2,300ft or 2,400ft would the pilot want or expect to be challenged about the base of CAS? Would the controller be expected to notice every deviation?

I've been told off for such deviations - nothing to do with the base of CAS :lol:

Only by one controller, whose voice I now recognise, and when I hear him I make sure I'm on my best behaviour :D

No complaint from me there, I hasten to add. It was a good reminder about pilot responsibilities on a TS.
Mike Tango liked this