Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
#1894728
As a...


I don't know Cub, but reading his posts across the years I gather he has experience in air traffic control, and has worked aircraft in all shapes and sizes at various aerodromes and centres. He's also flown several aircraft, including a Cub, and is aware of the issues pilots, ATC, aerodromes, and the travelling general public face today, and the need to update our creaky/fragmented system so that it is fit for purpose and best placed for the future, for all aircraft. :thumleft:
kanga liked this
#1894738
Cub wrote:Perhaps worth reading the vision for a typical GA flight?]

I am suspicious of the overuse of the word typical/typically.
I suppose if the word is repeated often enough those that read it will believe it.
Where is the definition or deduction that tells us what a typical GA flight is?
I am looking at a radar image of the south-west and only two of the 30 or so aircraft below 10,000ft are following any path that could be considered flight-plan-able.

We all know the airspace in the UK is a mess but parts of this consultation appear to be a Trojan horse wrapped up in teddy-bear fur.
flybymike liked this
#1894739
Boxkite wrote:
Cub wrote:
Boxkite wrote:Cub, I may have missed something, are you involved in this AMS professionally?


I am a minion who contributed to the strategy out for consultation.

So a vested interest?


In so far as I have a vested interest in listening to what was originally requested by the alphabet organisations and others, then turning those ideas and requests into concepts in a consultation for everyone to respond to.

The response to the consultation will determine the progression or otherwise of the concepts. I personally believe our airspace modernisation should be based around our ICAO obligations and those concepts that the users actually ask for and see as benefit.

To declare my hand. I am working as a part time contractor helping the CAA gather the initial input to the AMS refresh and to describe the requested GA concepts and ideas in the consultation. It is a lengthy and complex document which is why I am passionate about elaborating on the details of those GA concepts so that responders to the consultation can compose the most informed response to what is proposed. I am also a member of the LAA, GATCO and FISO at a couple of GA airfields as well as an enthusiastic GA pilot.

I must be clear that I offer this elaboration on the consultation concepts, having listened to all the requests and input during the pre engagement sessions, not as a CAA employee but as a keen GA enthusiast and forumite who wants to see deployed, that which is asked for and endorsed by my friends and colleagues in GA.
kanga, Mz Hedy, ls8pilot and 1 others liked this
#1894760
Cub wrote:
Boxkite wrote:Cub, I may have missed something, are you involved in this AMS professionally?


I am a minion who contributed to the strategy out for consultation.


Well yes, it is pretty obvious from your posts you are involved, so why not just say so at the very beginning when posting the link though?

xtophe wrote:As a member of one of the alphabet organisation?
As a representative of uAvionic? As a representative of the UK EC manufacturer?
As a former ATCO?
As a former CAA employee?


Precisely. Its not like there isnt a history of posts promoting an agenda going back at least to the CAAs infringements policy. Is a wonder that people get suspicious? Which is offputting, as I personally like that there are industry professionals willing to post on here about such important topics.

Regards, SD..
Boxkite, flybymike liked this
#1894770
Cub wrote:Just as the nature of a VFR flight is currently regarded as unpredictable and subject to alteration in track, level and timing, by virtue of the necessity to maintain VMC, then planned intention of flight will also be regarded as completely flexible.

This seems to be so out of touch, or just biased.
There are other reasons for varying one's 'track, level and timing', believe it or not, or are you just talking about VFR flight-planned flights?
Just as the nature of a VFR flight is currently regarded as unpredictable and subject to alteration in track, level and timing, by virtue of the necessity to wander wherever one wants, then planned intention of flight will also be regarded as completely random.
flybymike, Aerials liked this
#1894808
Boxkite wrote:
Cub wrote:Just as the nature of a VFR flight is currently regarded as unpredictable and subject to alteration in track, level and timing, by virtue of the necessity to maintain VMC, then planned intention of flight will also be regarded as completely flexible.

This seems to be so out of touch, or just biased.
There are other reasons for varying one's 'track, level and timing', believe it or not, or are you just talking about VFR flight-planned flights?
Just as the nature of a VFR flight is currently regarded as unpredictable and subject to alteration in track, level and timing, by virtue of the necessity to wander wherever one wants, then planned intention of flight will also be regarded as completely random.


I was referring to the fact that VFR flights in receipt of an ATC service are controlled differently to IFR flights in order to accommodate a VFR pilots obligations to maintain VMC, e.g. not above level clearances, route to the east of, rather than a heading etc. Additionally, I was suggesting that if a VFR pilot choose to share their intention of flight, however variable or random (the reason why most of us fly), then the reception and use of that data would need to be equally as flexible.

The voluntary sharing of this flight plan data would enable the sort of benefits for the pilot outlined earlier in the thread and the inclusion of the concept in the AMS consultation is a direct translation of the request from GA representatives to make better use of VFR flight plan data and to smooth the coordination and distribution between ATS units of flight details.

If this is not something you would seek to achieve in a modernised airspace or you propose an alternative then, of course, you should say so in response to the consultation.
#1895186
kanga wrote:
Several Forumites: "This could be done badly, costing us in light GA both money and freedoms, because the implementers won't understand what we do and want to do" :(

QUOTE REMOVED



I refer to my earlier post –

General Aviation operates largely, but not exclusively, in uncontrolled airspace


If this is how GA is viewed by the regulator, then private aviation is going to be pushed out of anywhere with a hard runway, anywhere where you might use an IR(R), anywhere with lighting after sunset.


Ian says he used to think that GA was about lunching in France, aerobatics………
General Aviation is all those things but, more importantly, it is about much more.

If we are talking about Private Pilots flying for pleasure, then they represent a sub-set of General Aviation.

My aircraft has been based at a regional airport for over a decade, as it was before I owned it. It shares parking with both single piston and single turbine engined aircraft used for pleasure and for business.

So, if the rationalisation of airspace is for the betterment of all users, the consultation needs to be written in such a way that it clearly identifies the airspace users – not simply refer to GA operating in uncontrolled airspace. GA needs access to controlled airspace. That access must be made easier.

Unfortunately, my experience is that the policy of the CAA is being written by non-aviation people who don’t listen to advice that conflicts with their own ideas.

(Edited to remove a quote to which Cub objected.
As Cub says he is working on this project, I welcome his input and thank him for engaging with grass roots aviation. )
#1895246
.. and we need to make it understood that the same aircraft and/or pilot can fit within different categories.

I can fly the Robin on an evening bimble, visit a farm strip to see other pilots or can fly across the UK or abroad (I wish) for business or social purposes.

We shouldn't be put into limited 'silos' that someone at the CAA or NATS feel we should belong in
#1895274
Indeed - there are lots of applications of GA with very different mission profiles. My business travel touring flight would be very different to my local bimble. As crop dusting would be different to surveying and flight instructing. And there’s balloons, drones, gliders, unscheduled biz jets, emergency services, and so on.

I seem to recall many, if not of all of these had been captured comprehensively in an earlier study of GA so these mustn’t be forgotten in order for the future system to work well.
#1895310
Cub wrote:
StratoTramp wrote: I did pick up on the use of the word "surveillance" also. Although I am a bit primed to think of the word in a negative light especially - Rather than say just being "visible".


I think the word 'surveillance' is used because of the perpetuation of non-radar-based 'cooperative surveillance' methods such as FLARM, PilotAware & ADS-B etc. Cooperative surveillance using ADS-B was enabled as an enhancement to FIS provision by FISOs last month and cooperative surveillance in various forms will undoubtedly be an enabler for many of the other proposed concepts.


just thought I'd grab these from a selection of English dictionaries.

Cambridge English Dictionary
Image

Oxford English Dictionary
Image

Collins English Dictionary
Image

I thought I was being paranoid.

It seems "cooperative surveillance" is an oxymoron.

As it stands, "surveillance" appears to be monitoring in the expectation of a crime, rather than monitoring for the benefit of safety. Sounds petty, but that word needs to be replaced with something more suitable.
flybymike, StratoTramp liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8