Timothy wrote:
It’s all above. It would be easy enough for you to read.
Nothing of the sort. I don’t know what has been going on behind closed doors in the UK about this “busting thing”. I wouldn’t be able to differentiate misinterpretation from fact if I tried. But, since this whole hammer in the head policy is so out of sync with anything in aviation, there must be something very wrong somewhere. Initially, I would think , maybe a bit naively, that this is a “wrong man at the wrong place” kind of problem. These things sometimes are. Typically this would be a person in the CAA.
However, you do give some hints here and there that this is not necessarily the case. It could also be that a larger group of people with feet in several camps, including GA pilots, somehow has convinced the CAA that there is a problem here that “we” can fix. All in good intentions, but with a very questionable end result (due to whatever reasons, but lack of competence is certainly high on the list).
IMO the main problem is airspaces and airspace structures. From what I understand however, they are wholly cows, and cannot be touched. Instead of dealing with the problem, you are trying to squash the symptoms. It is always a bad idea.
I read every infringement report. Only a small number have airspace complexity as a causal factor. Most infringers know the airspace is there but enter because of distraction, lack of focus or poor navigation. There are a few chart misreadings, which you could place at the door of complexity, and a some of those are in known hotspots where the chart could be improved, but the numbers are small.
The UK airspace is currently being rethought in an Airspace Modernisation strategy. The hope is to go for integration rather than segregation (though that would entail getting conspicuity right, a big project in its own right.)
Current complexity is the result of many years of trying to minimise the volume of CAS. There are many places (North of Winchester is a good example, or between Stansted and Luton) where the obvious simplification would be to drop Class D to the ground. The effect would be that pilots would have to get clearances or go much further round, both of which are resisted by most GA.
So it’s important to be careful what you wish for when it comes to simplification. The upshot is likely to be a significant rise in hassle with no commensurate decline in infringements.
Only a small number have airspace complexity as a causal factor.
I am not surprised.
The UK airspace is currently being rethought in an Airspace Modernisation strategy.
Which will then have a negligible effect. Have any details been published?
So it’s important to be careful what you wish for when it comes to simplification. The upshot is likely to be a significant rise in hassle with no commensurate decline in infringements.
IOW, nothing is being done which will reduce infringements.
This is because nobody wants to admit that nothing can be done to reduce infringements. This is because they are a consequence of basic human factors – to err is human, etc.
The rest of Europe has accepted this and they deal with it. Only the UK has set up a bunch of people in the system who are busting 100% of pilots who infringe, in the hope that somehow magically they will change the behaviour of homo sapiens.
The way to reduce the infringement statistics is to stop artifically inflating them. This is not going to happen because so much has been invested in inflating them. For example, NATS personnel dept (whoops I meant “HR”) is hardly going to write to all ATCOs that not reporting a bust is no longer a disciplinary offence, are they? It’s about as likely as the local chief of police writing to every car driver that it is ok to do 36 in a 30 limit. The DfT has already admitted (in that letter to me) that GA activity is not rising.
The way to reduce the infringements themselves, or more to the point their impact, is to set up an integrated ATC service whereby
The above two points is de facto what most of Europe has, to varying degrees, and is especially visible in France. The UK doesn’t want to do this because it would cost money.
Peter wrote:
Have any details been published?
There is loads of stuff from different agencies, but it’s all a bit spread around. The strategy is at a relatively early stage, though people have been talking about it for a long time.
Peter wrote:
IOW, nothing is being done which will reduce infringements.
Lots is being done to reduce infringements and the effects of infringements. Partly it’s a big increase in awareness (1884 post threads help, thank you), but also encouraging people to use moving maps properly and to use Listening Squawks/TMC is helping.
The number of risk and inconvenience bearing infringements has fallen dramatically over recent times. Top line numbers are going up because of increasing reporting (especially ATZs) and because of new types of airspace (the Hawarden RMZ created quite a bulge in numbers to start with) but the main concern is with those that cause a problem, and that has been a success.
@Peter, if nothing can be done to reduce infringements, are you as likely to infringe now as you were before your two? I am sure I saw you write that you had changed your behaviour as a result?
The big thing that the CAA is pushing, apart from moving maps and TMC, is “Take Two” which move people a little further from CAS (200’ and 2nm.) That should at least reduce the tiny errors becoming a problem and give the automatic airpace warnings a little longer to sink in.
if nothing can be done to reduce infringements, are you as likely to infringe now as you were before your two? I am sure I saw you write that you had changed your behaviour as a result?
Yes; I have basically stopped flying VFR within the UK – except trivial trips which can be fully preplanned, fully programmed, and autopilot guided at a single level. No sightseeing any more except along the s. coast. Despite having 2600hrs+ I would find anything else downright scary.
It has taken most of the enjoyment out of flying in the UK, so I tend to fly abroad more.
Not really an option for most. They will chuck it in, or turn off transponders.
which move people a little further from CAS (200’ and 2nm.) That should at least reduce the tiny errors becoming a problem and give the automatic airpace warnings a little longer to sink in.
Actually 200ft is not enough. You could have that much txp / encoder error. And it is no excuse. There is zero tolerance in the current system.
The more basic point is that “tiny errors” bring no risk so why bust the pilots anyway?
Tiny infringements can cause big repercussions, as you know. If you fly at 2300’ and go up by 200’ you don’t infringe. At 2400’ you do.
Not again… done to death. This is only because of the 5000ft add-on which artificially creates a crisis.
If CAS base is 2500:
When at 2300 you are at 2300.
When at 2400 you are at 2400.
When at 2499 you are at 2499.
When at 2501 you are at 7501 and the s**t hits the fan because one of these
is somewhere up there, around 6000ft.
No other country in Europe does this – except Belgium which implements a different version of it.
An Easyjet pilot friend says this is totally barking mad.
Done to death. Disingenuity rules in one-liners…
“Actually 200ft is not enough. You could have that much txp / encoder error. And it is no excuse. There is zero tolerance”
I do not believe take 2 is adequate when transponding beneath the London TMA.I apply Take 5 vertically especially with students as handling pilot.Most aircraft I fly have transponders that over read whilst remaining within tolerance.In terms of class G the airspace grab which is what this has become for transponding traffic is a massive take. If you take the first 1000ft as unusable it means the 1500ft base areas become viable at 1000ft only and a whole third of the already limited class G under 2500 ft is unavailable if squawking.What an own goal by the CAA and NATS In terms of encouragement to transpond. The risk of collision in the reduced amount of free airspace is massively increased .Our safety has been jeopardised by the CAA and NATS to achieve a theoretical target taking no account of system tolerances.Madness !
Regards to all practical aviators.Stampe
Timothy wrote:
1884 post threads help
Am glad the open, if sometimes circular, discussion thread and climate on EuroGA on this topic is appreciated :)
Airspace complexity must be an issue with the obvious bottlenecks. Also recording minor ATZ infringements seems to be risking zealotry.
Radar errors are typically around 1/4 mile so having some leeway on recording might be risking wisdom and pragmatism.
I would add that the listening squawk which is an excellent plan is unlikely to prevent an unwitting infringement.
