Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1837789
I have thought before about a "grey" zone to address this problem. In short you would have a buffer around CAS of say 500 feet and 5 miles. Controllers would get an alert much as they do now and an opportunity to inform the pilot an infringement was imminent. However, I have discarded this because to an extent all it does is effectively increase CAS, and the "grey" zone may have to be quite large to give the controllers time to respond to the alert and avoid an infringement. Inevitably there would be those aircraft not on frequency who would still infringe.
#1837790
TopCat wrote: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.


If controllers had been able to reliably spot actual infringements 100% of the time there would have been no requirement for the automated infringement warning tool. But they weren’t, hence the tool.

In a similar sort of vein the listening squawk helps to prevent and/or mitigate against potential and/or actual infringements, but I don’t really see how it could ever be considered a guaranteed, reliable solution to ensure a potential infringement never becomes an actual.
#1837791
TopCat wrote: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.


Yup, might have been better to have made the example a basic service :D
#1837799
IMCR wrote:I have thought before about a "grey" zone to address this problem. In short you would have a buffer around CAS of say 500 feet and 5 miles.
Mike Tango wrote:If controllers had been able to reliably spot actual infringements 100% of the time there would have been no requirement for the automated infringement warning tool. But they weren’t, hence the tool.


Well how about a system that Auto Announces on the listening frequency when someone is less than 2 miles and 200ft from controlled airspace in line with the take 2 thingy, and might actually make a listening squawk usefull...

Quite frankly CAIT is like CCTV after your house has been robbed.

Regards, SD..
TopCat liked this
#1837801
Mike Tango wrote:
TopCat wrote: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.


...In a similar sort of vein the listening squawk helps to prevent and/or mitigate against potential and/or actual infringements, but I don’t really see how it could ever be considered a guaranteed, reliable solution to ensure a potential infringement never becomes an actual.

I totally get this. I'm not arguing in favour of controllers being given unachievable responsibilities, quite the opposite in fact. I think pilots should take responsibility for their own flying and not be spoon fed. (cue 'when I were a lad' anecdotes').

I just get the sense that IRL, the listening squawk is a bit of a chocolate teapot from the pilot's point of view. So having it pushed as something genuinely useful is counterproductive, and we'd be better off with more clarity.
#1837802
skydriller wrote:Well how about a system that Auto Announces on the listening frequency when someone is less than 2 miles and 200ft from controlled airspace in line with the take 2 thingy, and might actually make a listening squawk useful

For the students that are banned from using SD, you mean? :D
#1837803
TopCat wrote:
I just get the sense that IRL, the listening squawk is a bit of a chocolate teapot from the pilot's point of view. So having it pushed as something genuinely useful is counterproductive


But it is genuinely useful. It cuts down a huge volume of totally pointless 'Basic Service' requests.

Rob P
Mike Tango, ChampChump, T67M and 3 others liked this
#1837808
TopCat wrote:
I just get the sense that IRL, the listening squawk is a bit of a chocolate teapot from the pilot's point of view. So having it pushed as something genuinely useful is counterproductive, and we'd be better off with more clarity.


Chocolate teapot is a tad harsh. It serves a useful purpose, including as suggested by Rob above, but it is not a panacea.

Neither controllers nor pilots are infallible, hence the assortment of mitigations, aids and procedures on both sides, some more effective than others, but hopefully all playing a part in effectively contributing to an overall safer environment.
#1837820
skydriller wrote:Quite frankly CAIT is like CCTV after your house has been robbed.


CAIT is activating to controllers in real time who are in position to respond immediately to it. Not to an empty ops room with the recording of its activation to be acted upon at some later time.

CAIT isn’t there to prevent infringements, it is there to mitigate against unobserved infringements and their subsequent potential consequences.

Different disparaging analogy needed :D
Last edited by Mike Tango on Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
G-BLEW liked this
#1837823
TopCat wrote:I just get the sense that IRL, the listening squawk is a bit of a chocolate teapot from the pilot's point of view. So having it pushed as something genuinely useful is counterproductive, and we'd be better off with more clarity.


My personal ranking as a pilot, from worst to best:

  1. Nordo: Nice quiet cockpit, but any infringement is likely to be dealt with severely due to perceived poor airmanship (especially if radio equipped)
  2. Basic (Chocolate Teapot) Service: Lots of radio chatter and some radio work causing constant distraction for no real benefit, and possibly increasing the likelihood of infringing as a result. Very unlikely (IME) to pre-emptively warn of an infringement, but will help you after you infringe. You gain a more favourable viewing by the Powers That Be for displaying some airmanship.
  3. Listening Squawk with Mode C: Not much radio chatter. Will not warn you about an infringement before it happens. Will try to help you after you infringe, but will have to call you by location not callsign, hence more need to pay attention! May reduce the severity of the infringement, and seen as a sign of good airmanship by the Powers That Be.
  4. Listening Squawk with Mode S for a LARS sector: Lots of radio distraction, mainly from other pilots asking for a BS. Might warn you about an infringement before it happens - about the same chance as a BS. Will call you by callsign and help you after you infringe, and you gain a favourable viewing by the Powers That Be.
  5. Traffic Service: Huge amount of radio workload - technically at every turning point, and before changing height. Might warn you about an infringement before it happens - maybe just slightly more chance as a BS, not still not very high in my experience. Will help you after you infringe, and you gain a favourable viewing by the Powers That Be.
  6. Listening Squawk with Mode S for the airspace you might infringe: Not much radio chatter, and you will not be warned that you are about to infringe. You will be called very quickly and by callsign to help you if you do infringe, and you gain a favourable viewing by the Powers That Be.

At the risk of putting words into a controller's mouth, my guess is that ATC would probably order them 1-3-4-6-2-5, not least because of the difficulty of making contact with a squawk-no-talk pilot who also forgets to listen.

Note also that "Listening Squawk" is more correctly referred to as an FMC (Frequency Monitoring Code) these days - they are exactly the same thing, but it seems to cause confusion with some of the pilots I fly with.

Of course, a whole load of the accidental infringement "problem" would go away if we didn't insist on splitting the UK air traffic system across different, competing controllers operating on the two sides of an imaginary line drawn on a chart with no "grey" area between them.
Dominie liked this
#1837830
I know I will not be with the majority, but I pretty much always ask for a traffic service if it is available. The trouble is, if everyone did, you would rarely get one.

In the twin I dont know whether controllers are slighly more inclined to grant a traffic service, but my impression is they do recognise the potentially faster speeds and higher work loads.

Of course it is the usual story some of the time you might like a traffic service due to the FIR being busy and in close proximity to CAS are the times the controller will be work load over-whelmed.
#1837899
My personal ranking as a pilot, from worst to best:


In the USA I always like the “when flying within x nm of this airport, pilots are strongly advised to request Flight Following”.

The nearest to that here is a Traffic Service and/or a request for a clearance which is my preferred option.

You and your intentions are then known to the controller - and the airspace boundaries become effectively invisible once cleared.

Then you get to know about other REAL traffic affecting you, and vice versa, because avoiding collisions is what really matters at the end of the day.

But if you can’t get it due to controller workload then a listening squawk is better than none.
#1837957
James Chan wrote:
My personal ranking as a pilot, from worst to best:


In the USA I always like the “when flying within x nm of this airport, pilots are strongly advised to request Flight Following”.

The nearest to that here is a Traffic Service and/or a request for a clearance which is my preferred option.


If we had Flight Following here in the UK, it would have been #7 in my list, and is what I was alluding to with my comment:

T67M wrote:Of course, a whole load of the accidental infringement "problem" would go away if we didn't insist on splitting the UK air traffic system across different, competing controllers operating on the two sides of an imaginary line drawn on a chart with no "grey" area between them.
#1837975
Fascinating thread and as an ATO, FI and FE I come under a lot of fire, much of it justified.
I think being made to fly using WW2 methods while a much easier and safer bit of kit lies unused is absurd. The latest (2020) FEH (yes I know guidance) says DR must be used in the nav with no moving map. The guidance needs to be updated.
Rob P, IMCR, AndyR and 1 others liked this
#1837986
IF the knowledge to understand navigation entails the student working out heading, speed, drift and time and is a requirement, then why not a moving map without the capability for inputting a magenta line to follow as a compromise?

The student would still need to identify chart and ground features but without the benefit of the gps having a heading to steer from the gps.

After all a gps chart is now accepted in place of paper chart and it could even be representative of the standard CAA chart and the student would have the benefit of identifying ground features and airspace.