hazek wrote:
I have to say I’m very conflicted about you personally Peter. You are doing a great thing for GA by running this forum and I appreciate your work online a lot. But on the other hand you are a terrible and dangerous influence on pilots personally. As exhibited by your video in the Swiss Alps and by your comments in here you have a terrible attitude towards air regulations and the rules that you are supposed to follow in the air for your own and the safety of everyone else. Nobody is perfect and we all have our flaws but if I may, maybe it would be a good idea to go read up on Human Performance subject one more time and refresh your knowledge, specifically the chapter on Hazardous Attitudes. It may just save your life one day.
Reminds me of a podcast I listened to yesterday with Mike Goulian, the Red Bull air race pilot.
It’s our friends and people that care about us that sometimes give us the best advice.
hazek wrote:
If Solent CTA is active, the transition altitude is 6000ft and it is contiguous with the Class A hence the Class A lower limit changes to 5500ft altitude.If they are not active, the transition altitude is standard 3000ft and the Class A lower limit is as published FL55.
See? No need to speculate, no need to pontificate about this or that hypothesis, the rules are clear. As they should be.
Right, this explains things and it’s logical too. And looking at the EFB, this remark is available in the airspace description. It is not available on the maps though, at least not the ones I posted.
As a general remark, this maybe shows why the system of variable TA/TL used in Europe sometimes has questionable benefits as compared to the system used in the US, where the TA/TL is a fixed number for the whole country. Changing TA in function of airspace availability takes this concept even further than I’ve ever seen elsewhere… maybe there is room for improvement here.
Not sure @Peter is prone to hazardous attitudes! In defence of the CAA the poor design of airspace in the UK is a result of lack of joined up airspace, which in turn is a consequence of the flawed design of cost budgets on public services post the UK embracing privatisation. Their approach to MOR vigilance does depend on some faith in common sense and the British tradition of believing cock up trumping conspiracy:)
Getting an MOR for a CAS bust is a fact of life/rite of passage for GA pilots in the UK. CAA Examiners get MORs just as Club PPLs. The only way to 100% avoid them is to fly CAT in Class A and Class D under radar control.
I have found the CAA benign when getting the letter asking who the pilot was after a CAS bust. They tend to accept good faith extenuating circumstances. Although I can understand @Peter’s sensitivity that the system appears to potentially lack accountability: at the end of the day this is the UK and democratic checks and balances operate. AOPA UK or your local MP surgery should be able to intervene and ensure there is no Kafkaesque rabbit hole where you disappear into :)
RobertL18C wrote:
n defence of the CAA the poor design of airspace in the UK is a result of lack of joined up airspace, which in turn is a consequence of the flawed design of cost budgets on public services post the UK embracing privatisation. Their approach to MOR vigilance does depend on some faith in common sense and the British tradition of believing cock up trumping conspiracy:)Getting an MOR for a CAS bust is a fact of life/rite of passage for GA pilots in the UK. CAA Examiners get MORs just as Club PPLs. The only way to 100% avoid them is to fly CAT in Class A and Class D under radar control.
I think this is probably a good analysis. I don’t subscribe to the theory that if there are too many infringements that this 1:1 means that there are too many incompetent pilots. Yes, there are people who infringe or do other stupid things because they ARE stupid or not trained enough, but as you say, it happens to even CAA examiners and people who fly regularly and with experience. This does point into the direction that airspace design has a lot to do with it.
One item I see which immediately comes out is the extensive use of Airspace A, which has been avoided by most of EASA territory these days with very few exceptions. A is an airspace which is limiting even to ATC itself as they are not allowed to let anyone pass there VFR even if there is a good reason. You can achieve the very same thing with B or C airspace (as the US Bravo Airspace shows) but with more flexibility.
The one thing which is a hot iron is to “simplify” airspace structures. The call for that comes from all directions and sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes not. Simplifying usually involves putting several chunks of airspaces together in one pot, usually with the most extensive limits of all joined up airspaces, which can mean lower limits to a larger area. Simplifying other structures however, such as transition altitudes over larger airspaces however, can be helpful as well as going through the structure and considering what airspaces are really necessary and what is left over from times gone by.
I also find it a clever solution to propose recommended VFR transit routes in complex airspaces together with altitudes where they can be used. If thus published, both pilots and ATC can refer to a known set of parameters and work together easier. And no, they don’t have to be “compulsory” and if necessary and prakticable alternative routes can be flown, but they give to those who struggle with complex airspaces a guideline where they can safely fly and ATC where they most likely are.
hazek wrote:
But on the other hand you are a terrible and dangerous influence on pilots personally. As exhibited by your video in the Swiss Alps and by your comments in here you have a terrible attitude towards air regulations and the rules that you are supposed to follow in the air for your own and the safety of everyone els
That is uncalled for and in my opinion is a personal attack. It’s against the forum posting guidelines. It’s the sort of personal attack that we’re very proud to not allow here.
In other word, play the ball, not the man.
The airspace that was given as an example that started this off was north of Liverpool which has a base FL55 and is adjacent to an airspace with a base of Alt 4500.
Here is it’s definition in the AIP.
You’ll note that it’s base is DEFINED as FL55.
There is no suggestion that FL55 can be interpreted as Alt 5500 if that’s higher. There is no condition that FL55 must be a useable level. There is no condition that you must have your altimeter set to 1013.
It’s quite simple. The base of Class A is FL55. If you are above that line, you are in class A and better have a clearance to be there. If you are below that line, you don’t need any clearance.
FL55 is simply a line in the sky. How to you know where that line is? It’s a height when your altimeter is set to 1013.
It could just as easily have been defined as Alt 5500 plus/minus 27ft for MB for each change in pressure on the ground. But that’s not the way we do things in aviation as it’s too complicated to use in flight. FL55 exists whether it’s usable or not. We know this because the airspace is DEFINED as such.
This particular trap is taught at basic flight training in the UK, as it’s an easy trap to fall into. If I remember correctly, it’s also emphasised on the exam (if you get the online test option) after busing an airspace in the UK.
In other word, play the ball, not the man
+1 for this, if not +100. The post that this references is way out of line.
To me as a US-trained pilot, the only conclusion to be drawn from this debate is that the whole business of transition altitudes in Europe – and certainly in the UK – is terminally confusing and appears to have been designed with the sole purpose of making it impossible to know where you are (FL-sky or not). Combine that with the punitive regime in the UK and it just guarantees unpleasantness all round.
johnh wrote:
To me as a US-trained pilot, the only conclusion to be drawn from this debate is that the whole business of transition altitudes in Europe – and certainly in the UK – is terminally confusing and appears to have been designed with the sole purpose of making it impossible to know where you are (FL-sky or not).
Having “grown up” in this kind of airspaces, I don’t think the problem is that extreme. TA is usually written neatly on all approach charts as well as on the enroute charts so we pretty much know in which airspace what goes. Also in most cases, TA is not that low (like 3000 ft) but rather determined by terrain as well as airspace structure. I’ve so far never had a problem “knowing where I am” in that regard. However, TA is usually a fixed altitude, not something which changes with availability or non-availability of airspaces.
I think from what I know of the US airspaces, the big difference is that there are no if any Class A airspaces, where VFR is explicitly forbidden, but rather “Bravo” airspaces in those areas. I am well aware that airspace infringements are also a problem in the US, but there are very few if any airspaces which are totally closed, save from a few special rules areas such as military areas or TFR’s.
In Europe, Airspace A is also on decline, thankfully but still exists in some places such as the Paris TMA and in the London area. Where it does exist, it presents a problem in the sense that ATC has to stay unflexible and can’t use their own discretion to decide how to deal with VFR traffic. Also it makes airspaces below it unflexible with a “concrete” roof so to speak.
I would also think that the actual topic of this thread is really a UK thing rather than any other European country. Clearly, airspace infringements are a problem everywhere, but how they are being dealt with appears to be different in the UK than elsewhere. This is pretty much what this thread is all about rather than the technicality of the airspace structure, nonwithstanding that some of the airspaces in the UK are quite complex.
hazek wrote:
arj1 wrote: Well, if an IR(R) pilot flies at 5000 with very low pressure, then he will be inside Class A according to CAANo, you would be flying FL50 if the Solent CTA is not active and that would put you outside the Class A. If you were flying 5000ft that would only be possible if the Solent CTA is active and in that case the Class A boundary is 5500ft putting you again outside it.
@hazek, I’m sorry, but CAA does NOT care. “Is he flying above FL55 on 1013? Yes? Busted!”, no discussion. Judging by your location (ELLX), you are flying on EASA license, so I think it is not going affect you much, if UK CAA considers that you’ve busted Class A – after they send a letter to your CAA, your CAA will just laugh on it.
For the UK pilots it is a different story – busted!
After that you have two choices:
Choice 1 – follow UK CAA (un)just culture policy and hope they don’t punish you much or
Choice 2 – refuse to cooperate. In that case, if you are right, then you are golden (they can’t prosecute in that case) but if you are wrong, it going to cost you a fortune and your license.
dublinpilot wrote:
That is uncalled for and in my opinion is a personal attack. It’s against the forum posting guidelines.
It’s been several times now that he has done exactly that to me and I ignored it always because, well, you can’t be bothered by that in life irrespective of any forum rules. He has derogatorily accused me of being an ATCO, questioned me being a pilot at all and questioned my ability as a pilot. Does he get to make personal attacks that if it’s against the rules here just because he is the admin?
And I would have continued to not say anything but stating that the AIP is BS crosses a line for me where I felt like I needed to speak up. It’s just my opinion regardless to which I am entitled to and I didn’t call for anything else but for him to reflect a little on his attitude.
dublinpilot wrote:
The airspace that was given as an example that started this off was north of Liverpool which has a base FL55 and is adjacent to an airspace with a base of Alt 4500.
There is no dilemma here either such as this case was presented as. If we look at the chart:
And read here:
Then it’s clear, if you are below Yorkshire CTA 2 the TA is 3000ft so above it you need to fly FLs and then there is no dilemma. If you are within Leeds Bradford CTA 3, the transition altitude is 5000ft:
So yes, here indeed if you are not careful, and you stray outside of the Leeds Bradford CTA 3 into the Yorkshire CTA 1 or 2 you could bust that CAS. But there is no dilemma whether or not you would or what the limits are. In fact they even published Yorkshire CTA 1 as 4500ft lower limit just so that you know exactly where you are if you leave Leeds Bradford towards it.
Having “grown up” in this kind of airspaces, I don’t think the problem is that extreme. TA is usually written neatly on all approach charts as well as on the enroute charts so we pretty much know in which airspace what goes. Also in most cases, TA is not that low (like 3000 ft) but rather determined by terrain as well as airspace structure. I’ve so far never had a problem “knowing where I am” in that regard. However, TA is usually a fixed altitude, not something which changes with availability or non-availability of airspaces.
The entire issue strikes me as nuts. Just raise the TA to 18,000 feet everywhere, way above any terminal area airspace, and the issue is gone: I’ve never flown at a flight level in my life and very likely never will. It’s a pointless concept for GA operations, especially in 2023 when getting an altimeter setting should not mean talking to anybody on the ground.
The only reason to have TA lower than 18,000 ft and above local terrain was that local infrastructure could not provide altimeter settings to aircraft enroute. That constraint should now be gone almost everywhere, and if it isn’t then that’s the problem to solve.
