Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

If people can’t land without all that Q-crap they should never have been sent on a PPL solo cross-country flight.

Absolutely!

It is about (a) busting CAS (b) landing on an IAP in real IMC (c) traffic control by ATC.

it is in the nature of this forum that if you say what others think, you then have to own the opinion.

I have passed this by some others and nobody has any idea of what it means. And whatever it means, why precisely is it specific to EuroGA? Nobody is forced to post here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

To point is not if people can land without information from ATC

With respect, that was exactly the point under discussion. The question was not whether we ought to set QNH for traffic separation in busy controlled airspace, but whether we need QFE or indeed any such info from ATC in order to land a typical GA airplane on a runway made for commercial air transport.

I note that at my own aerodrome, all manner of GA aircraft from 300 to 24,000 kg MTOW come and go perfectly safely on all of the three runways with nobody to tell them any Q-this or Q-that or which way the wind was blowing some time before they landed.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

have passed this by some others and nobody has any idea of what it means. And whatever it means, why precisely is it specific to EuroGA? Nobody is forced to post here.

I think I know what he means. It happens all the time. You cannot really write anything of an approximate, derived or third hand nature, yet purely factual, without someone “attacking” you for having a certain unsubstantiated opinion . The specific case above is as good an example as any. It gives us two possible conclusions:

  1. The RAF use QFE because they have some specific needs, and this will simplify things (yet we don’t know exactly what these needs are or what it simplifies)
  2. The RAF use QFE out of old habit and tradition, nothing else.

Which one is correct? Of course it is the first one. The second one is indeed purely based on (unsubstantiated) opinion, and cannot be explained in any other way. There may be some truth in the second one as well, but it is not the reason why RAF use QFE. It is more in the line of why change something that works? (which indeed is a good tradition by any measure).

It is the same with gliders. Metric system and QFE makes confusion sometimes, but what is the alternative? Their system works perfectly well for them, and a change to “normal aviation practice” will mean changing every single IAS, every single alt meter, every single VSI. They have to rewrite all the books, make new procedures. It’s never going to happen. I have never heard of any accidents caused by this “confusion”, so it is not a problem of any kind, more of a funny/annoying curiosity.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I think it is nature of life (not only here) that when you explain a point of view of others (that you don’t necessarily agree with), you will end up will a few people that disagree with that other point of view jumping on your explanation, as if you were defending it.

without someone “attacking” you

Where is the “attack”?

Obviously if you post something which somebody thinks needs additional explanation, they will ask you for the additional explanation. This is the nature of debate.

Let’s look at some basics of discussion, with 3 examples:

1) “but there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS”

2) “but, RAF Commander Smith told me that there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS”

3) “but, I was told by a former RAF ATCO there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS”

If you write 1) then you are expressing your opinion and you will need to defend it if it comes under question.

If you write 2) or 3) then nobody is entitled to an explanation from you because – IF that is all you wrote on that topic, without further endorsement – you have merely reported what you were told.

Timothy wrote 1) and is apparently complaining that people are asking him for an explanation!

To post something presented as your opinion on which, when questioned, you then disappear / refuse to engage, is known as trolling. We’ve had a few of those (not significant volume posters) and they tend to get removed eventually. They usually do it to denigrate the forum; usually due to some of the stuff here.

I have never heard of any accidents caused by this “confusion”, so it is not a problem of any kind, more of a funny/annoying curiosity.

Neither have I, because to hit the ground due to this would require a massive pressure gradient, but the wrong altimeter setting can get you busted big-time in the UK for busting CAS. There is now zero tolerance. The 200ft normally allowed is disregarded by the CAA. If your Mode C shows in CAS, even by 100ft, then you are busted.

And a lot of people have always flown 100-200ft below CAS, myself included. Around the LTMA you more or less have to, in places. This is why I have stopped flying around the 2500/3500 parts of the LTMA, but most UK GA doesn’t have that option. Many are even based there. Many of these people are now turning off their transponders…

IME, a more common mistake is to come off a high altitude flight on 1013 and forget to set the QNH. I did that once, with a pressure of about 1035, and got a humorous telling off by Gatwick Director. Today, there would be no telling off…

FWIW, I am told that anybody busted for CAS minus 100ft would win a court case, because this is within the txp tolerance. But this is a high risk. If the CAA decides to not prosecute then you won’t get your costs back (say a few k). If you lose, it could cost you 10k+ and your license will probably be removed to drive the point home.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

On the subject of gliding, I’ve never been asked for a tow to xxx metres. Always feet. Maybe that’s just a weird northern British thing like eating turnips and ovine offal while reciting doggerel…

And yes, some of our floppy hat wearing friends do zero their altimeters before departing rather than setting field elevation, but I’ve never heard or been given “QFE” or “QNH” on the wireless at a gliding field.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Is there really such a huge hectopascal/mb variation between RPS and QNH in the UK as to make a significant difference between entering or not entering CAS?
I have recently flown some 300nm across France. As the airfield I departed had no ATS service I set my altimeter to the airfield elevation, 78ft 996hp. On first contact with FIS I was given 995hp it remained so until my destination a direct line distance of 300NM. I consider 30ft to be within the bounds of instrument error.Are UK pressure areas really so different from those in France?

France

Yes true, just ask any floppy hat air traffic controller what is the QFE and you get an afternoon fun, I also ask for circuit height to be sure ;)

For aerotows, I beleive the tug aircraft is the one pulling and it uses an AltiFeet (proof that the glider who uses AltiMeter is not really pushing the tug as some may think)

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

“Are UK pressure areas really so different from those in France?”

I would not be flying on days where RPS/QNH are that different

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

ASRs

This is the best map I can find

Bear in mind that a +100ft error (3mb or so) is enough to get you busted in the UK.

This is today. Each pair of lines is 4mb apart.

Clearly it is possible, but I would not think the RPS-QNH difference is a big “Gasco filler”. The 1013-QNH would be bigger, especially as few serious pilots ever set the RPS even if given it.

EDIT: UK ASR MAP

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top