[IMCR]

JohnM - this lept out at me before I made the effort to read any further;

"Plan for a transit that seems likely"

.. .. and made me smile.

I have always wanted to have a fly with the people who write this stuff (with them as the observer mind you, definitely not in command).

[James Chan]

just read this courtesy of Nick at AOPA. There is only one word to describe this utter dog's breakfast and that word is: insane

Indeed. It was going to happen, no doubt. Just watch what happens next when neighbouring aerodromes are ordered to sharply restrict their activities due to the persistent infringements.

It could have been one airport with a few runways a long time ago with joined up management of traffic. Not a cluster of aerodromes pitched against each other, whether neither is concerned about the other's business until it becomes a thorn.

[JodelDavo]

My point is that the ability to fly with a chart and compass isn't really relevant!

I disagree, but everyone to their own.

[johnm]

It could have been one airport with a few runways a long time ago with joined up management of traffic. Not a cluster of aerodromes pitched against each other, whether neither is concerned about the other's business until it becomes a thorn

Like Brize/Oxford/Fairford etc, etc.

[IMCR]

It is interesting seeing all the photos and VRPs, in that in my experience fewer and fewer pilots are capable of safely navigating visually, the more so if they are flying in an area that is not their local cabbage patch. Partly, and like any skill, the more pilots who dont visually navigate the more the skill fails, so the use of moving maps is, in my opinion, only accelerating this trend.

I am not commenting on whether it is a good or bad development, simply observing the trend.

In consequence pretending that pilots are navigating visually or should use VRP's is reckless and irresponsible, and yet this seems to still be part of airspace design, presumably so that when the technology fails it can be said "oh well, you shuld have fallen back on your non existent visual nav. skills.

Back to topic, it is the unreasoanbly complex and extensive nature of these airspace grabs that are causing an increase in infringements when combined with controllers being absolved of any responsibility to provide a flight following service for aircraft in these areas of complicated navigation.

Controllers in these areas should be obliged to provide a flight following service and there governors should not have been permitted to lean on the CAA to the extent they have so that all that matters is their commercial interest. I am afraid the CAA have let us all done very badly, as well as the Government for allowing the control of our airspace to fall into private hands - when I last checked I thought the air above and around us was publically owned, but clearly I was wrong.

[Captain Fourbars]

IMCR's penultimate paragraph is the point. We can debate refining navigational skills until the cows come home but the REAL villain is the amoral theft of such massive volumes of our airspace from which GA is effectively excluded.

LOOK INSTEAD to improving arrangements to let us share (most of) that airspace. More VFR corridors (the LAX example,) far less low VFR ceilings under CAS that keeps us out and puts US at risk and better ATC coverage and management.

We are all now moving to infinitely more accurate navigation aids and at the very least, GA with Mode S, GPS, Sky Demon, etc should be accommodated with more respect instead of treating us as a nuisance and of no consequence.

'Infringements'? You can't hog all the chairs in the room and when somebody goes to sit down, tell them 'You're in my seat'.

[James Chan]

n that in my experience fewer and fewer pilots are capable of safely navigating visually

It's not also helped by the fact we're essentially forced to fly so low. If we can fly/transit up to say 10,000ft, identifying visual features becomes a whole lot easier - say from about 4,500ft upwards...

Like Brize/Oxford/Fairford etc, etc.

Yup. Poorly thought out aerodrome strategy and placement is a root of poorly thought out airspace strategy.

[flybymike]

It's not also helped by the fact we're essentially forced to fly so low. If we can fly/transit up to say 10,000ft, identifying visual features becomes a whole lot easier - say from about 4,500ft upwards...

A tad optimistic about the cloud base there James.

[Dave W]

Poorly thought out aerodrome strategy and placement is a root of poorly thought out airspace strategy.

Got to say, aerodrome placement is not something that can be thought out in order to deliver an airspace strategy.

It's obviously driven by other factors - including historic conflicts!

If only life was like The Sims.

[James Chan]

I see what you're saying, but I was more thinking about the few decades following the post-war years and the needs of meeting (future) civil air travel based on where the population is.

An airspace strategy may require certain aerodromes to be retrofitted into it - some marked for expansion, maybe some for closure. Yet many feel the impact today from previous phases of sell-offs or new leases without appropriate conditions attached.

[IMCR]

Poorly thought out aerodrome strategy and placement is a root of poorly thought out airspace strategy.

Got to say, aerodrome placement is not something that can be thought out in order to deliver an airspace strategy.

It's obviously driven by other factors - including historic conflicts!

If only life was like The Sims.

Got to say in the world of big things these are very minor provincial airports that in the States, and ineed even in some parts of Europe, would barely register on the pulseomiter, and could and should be intergrated into the airspace structure, without all the fuss we are seeing. I am afraid it is old case of empire building on very poor foundations, to which everyone else is just caving in because there is no realistic opposition.

I do wonder how many pilots have seen how things operate elsewhere without all this fuss.

I have said before, but still will say it again, this progression will be the demise of GA and some people here just do not see it coming. Go and fly in Italy and see how this can so easily end up and mark my words that is the course on which we are set.

Freedoms are hard won, and very easily lost.

DaveW I know we do disagree on occasions, and this is set on a course to disaster, as well as the current infringement policy. I referred to an article in another mag. not far from here and it is well worth a read. It is some brave journalism and tells it as it is.

[johnm]

This has to be one for APPG and DfT and we should probably be making a case for AOPA or maybe GAAC to present to them?

I think an earlier post explaining how we got here was donked on political grounds.

[IMCR]

This has to be one for APPG and DfT and we should probably be making a case for AOPA or maybe GAAC to present to them?

I think an earlier post explaining how we got here was donked on political grounds.

I am not sure if AOPA have taken any position on this? Perhaps someone knows, albiet often it is a secret confined to members only.

It would also be interested to know with regard to GAAC?

Both excellent suggestions I might add.

[Dave W]

via Airspace4All, here is a recently published Airspace & Safety Initiative document:

Airspace Infringement Working Group - Report from Causal Factors Working Group 2019

[David Wood]

via Airspace4All, here is a recently published Airspace & Safety Initiative document:

Airspace Infringement Working Group - Report from Causal Factors Working Group 2019

That's a really interesting read. I need to study it in detail now.