Airspace is supposed to serve pilots.
Having a VRP that cannot be flown directly over is absurd in light of expected navigational accuracy when flying pure dead reckoning methods.
Whoever published this absurd document clearly has never once flown via dead reckoning using VRPs.
According to a basic interpretation of PBN for local traffic, ATC is expected to maintain 3nm of separation.
Airways are 8-10nm wide to support imperfections in navigation and yet VFR pilots are somehow supposed to fly a VRP line better than 300m…
Yeah, and there should be a ticket for crossing the line on a rural English road, too… Right?
The policy maker should be required to fly the route purely via VFR and dead reckoning with no prior familiarization training.
If they can fly the same line within 300m themselves, then perhaps the aviation community should have a place for their regulations.
Otherwise, please be reasonable policymakers.
Final point, even the PBN requirements take GNSS jamming into account.
From the recommendations provided in the document above, would I be exempt from punitive measures if I were to experience the following situation:
Navigating with a skydemon tablet and Garmin GNS430, when some interference caused a GNSS outage and I slightly crossed into the airspace?
I followed the recommendation, so I’m exempt, right?
If not, get a life. VFR navigation is difficult and if the regs can’t support that, they aren’t helping, they are the problem.
AF wrote:
Airspace is supposed to serve pilots.
I don’t think so, and not sure of the source of that idea. Airspace is supposed to serve ATC in the first instance, and CAT in the 2nd instance. Pilots don’t really come into the equation in terms of service when designing and classifying airspace.
AF wrote:
The policy maker should be required to fly the route purely via VFR and dead reckoning
Do you actually mean dead reckoning and not pilotage? (It would still be absurd if the width of the route is 300 m.)
True. If the current proposal for CHF500 charge per private flight in Switzerland actually gets implemented (although personally I don’t expect it to in its current form) then the Zurich airspace problem will be solved in one fell swoop with only one airspace needed because there will only be CAT.
It used to be ok when ATC would tell you off if you nipped some corner but with today’s new “100% bust them all” policy, who can take the risk?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you actually mean dead reckoning and not pilotage? (It would still be absurd if the width of the route is 300 m.)
Yes, dead reckoning. Pilotage can typically only be done if someone knows the route already.
If they don’t, they have to calculate the dead reckoned route first, and fly it via pilotage when possible.
Does no-one in the UK think someone will fly internationally?
Most of my flying has been to places I’ve never been before. There is no wrote script for that. Planning is essential, and today gps makes that easier, but hard-assed oversight causes people to do stupid things like fly around large swaths of airspace even if the weather is dodgy.
In my case, I planned as well as possible, then crossed the channel and found things weren’t exactly as advertised weather wise.
Thankfully, I was in contact with London Info, who warned me about my position as I was dodging clouds.
I could have busted the airspace, but knowing how anal retentant things are these days, I made a different decision.
Notably, I took the the less safe choice that carried no punitive consequences.
Peter wrote:
It used to be ok when ATC would tell you off if you nipped some corner but with today’s new “100% bust them all” policy, who can take the risk?
I’ll take the risk. The chart you show is a mess that’s for sure, but with reasonable planning I’m extremely confident I could navigate it without busting any airspace (although it helps when your plane is slow, you get more thinking time!)
Of course, I have been “navigating” there, at 140kt, for best part of 20 years, without busting stuff. But try a bit of distraction… in the past, you got told off. Now you get busted.
And if you get Gasco (which between about 20% and close to 100% do, depending on the time of the year) then the next time your license is pulled.
To me, it simply isn’t worth it anymore. Many solve it by flying non txp and non-radio, but if I do that I lose the TCAS functionality.
Peter wrote:
It used to be ok when ATC would tell you off if you nipped some corner but with today’s new “100% bust them all” policy, who can take the risk?
How does this busting work technically? From that map, does each little airspace have it’s own “busting officer” that guards the airspace? Is it done automatically? Is it some central unit higher up with the view of all airspaces?
