Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Apparently now means that getting anywhere near controlled airspace there is a Threat you might bump into it. So to Manage that Threat, you go even further away than our other favourite Take Two

When considering a route, it is essential that effective Threat and Error Management is incorporated into the plan. By avoiding the Heathrow CTR – Gatwick CTA corridor and routing from:

West Tisted – Petersfield – Burgess Hill – Uckfield – Tunbridge Wells – The QEII Bridge/Dartford

and incorporating the guidance of ‘Take 2’, the pilot would have added a maximum of just 17NM to the overall flight distance and approximately 10 minutes to the flight time but would have Treated (managed) all 8 Threats shown in Figure 4.

Rob P
Completely over the top. I'm surprised they don't also suggest that if the pilot have to use runway 23 for the take-off they should just go home since they might possibly infringe the Southampton CTA :roll:

But at least achieving Skygod status should be within our grasp: "the 30NM section from abeam OCKHAM VOR (OCK) to the River Thames will stretch even the best pilot’s lookout and capacity."

There are lots of good things about the principles of TEM, but sadly this sort of thing completely makes a mockery of it.
Rob P, gaznav, 2Donkeys liked this
I don't feel Biggin were entirely blameless in this case either. Their basic service is apparently pretty basic.

Rob P
If the pilot had simply not bothered to talk to anyone, then he wouldn't have got distracted by trying to find Swanley at the crucial moment …
Rob P, TopCat, Morten and 5 others liked this
nallen wrote:If the pilot had simply not bothered to talk to anyone, then he wouldn't have got distracted by trying to find Swanley at the crucial moment …

If the pilot had stayed at home all would also have been cushty.

I’m not sure the infringement powers that be are doing themselves any favours pushing out examples such as this, with suggestions to mitigate that only really achieve a degree of eyebrow raising and resigned head shaking.
Rob P, Colonel Panic, flybymike and 5 others liked this
Instead of "adding just 17 miles", they could have said " this alternative route would add 16% to the pilots fuel use, rental cost and time. We don't think that should be a concern to an average GA pilot."

Also do they not realise that just south of the Gatwick zone is also a traffic funnel because of the amount of east- west traffic that does go that way?

It's mind blowing.
Infringement report wrote:Rather than giving avoiding action to the IFR CAT aircraft in a critical phrase of flight....

Yes, because clipping that SE corner is an obvious collision threat to something on the 27 ILS into LCY.

He's unknown traffic, goddammit, they can't know he's not going to suddenly turn towards the airport and cause mayhem.
johnm wrote:THIS IS ALL CARP



Excellent rant. Really first class. I had thought they needed to be longer, to get the outrage juices really flowing, but I see that I was wrong.

The capitals, complete lack of punctuation and the typo really bring the frothing and spittle to life.

But shame on @G-BLEW, for making C R A P a banned word. ;)
More to the point.

The pilot should have been able to plan a flight West Tilstead DCT Rougham .

Filed a flight plan , if he wanted to, and then taken a direct flight to his destination, without having to go through multiple changes of direction, altitude, dodge ball with other aircraft and numerous changes of squalk and frequency on, let's face it, a 99 NM flight.

The rest of it as far as I'm concerned is all window dressing by ANSP/CAA.

We flew from Popham to a strip in Kent.
Stayed south of Farnborough’s down to the ground airspace, and below their VIP Bizjet grab.

Back in Kent I was surprised when a friend who had departed before us called up behind us.
He had routed well south of Gatwick, a long way around...
The reason:
He had been reamed out by Farnborough ATC for flying below their airspace without a transponder.
Do you actually need a transponder to fly in uncontrolled airspace below controlled airspace?

Better to not talk to such people if you do not have a transponder.

With a transponder we were to go down to Devon from Oxfordshire... This meant deviating around Brize Norton, “I don’t want to talk to Brize Norton” I was told. Another past bad experience... Is this common?
I said I would do the radio, ask for a clearance, and I was cleared through the Brize zone without any trouble at all going and returning.

I suppose there are bad, confrontational, controllers who put many pilots off talking to them, and the good ones such as at Brize last weekend who don’t get to talk to some of us because of their nasty associates.
gaznav liked this

Indeed. Thanks for the rant. :thumleft: 8)

Talk less, navigate more.

Doesn’t work I’m afraid. Not being aware of limitations to navigational performance combined with being non-radio has caused large issues.

And people always think if there’s a voice to talk to, then the “controller will sort it out”, and to be fair, in many other countries, they do.
My rant was only slightly tongue in cheek as all the hand wringing and cheek sucking by the authorities does not alter the fact that they are only prepared to offer the equivalent of aspirins for appendicitis on the airspace front....

It is my earnest hope that the drone fraternity will be a catalyst to improve matters but I fear that history suggests it'll just make things worse. :(
gaznav, JAFO liked this