A pity given how much they spent on it. Shows how precarious reliance on “airlines” can be.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know of any case of non radar qualified personnel (whether ATCOs or FISOs or A/G) having a radar terminal, which is what the earlier stuff was about.
Biggin Hill
Yes, it is a great pity. For some reason I always wanted to wish the little line of passengers a safe journey as they set off when I did see them.
I am advising on a new Seaplane operation which is very exciting in some ways, but incredibly brave in others. I think because of its market sector it might actually be a great success and has fabulous financial banking, so it stands a chance. Only the best stand any chance of survival.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
What phraseology is used, so it is clear an instruction is not being given
Why is it important that a clear instruction is not being given?
Anyway, what AA say, but it depends on the actual situation. In Norway it is also ATC who handles information, unless you are in TIA/TIZ, which has no ATC, only FIS. Inside (under, in case of information, in G) the outermost borders of the TMA it is the approach that handles information (could also be the tower depending on time and traffic and place). Outside the TMA, and sometimes in TIA as well, it is Norway Control.
Below the TMA there is helicopter traffic. They often fly IFR. It has happened a few of times that ATC tells me to stay above a certain alt for instance, due to conflicting helicopter traffic. Typically you come from somewhere else, entering the TMA (below, on G). ATC simply say “LXX, stay above YY feet”. Is that an instruction, or is it information? It could very well mean you fly up into controlled airspace for instance. No one cares what it is called, it is not important. What is important is when flying inside the outermost borders of the TMA, below in G, you don’t do it without getting in touch with the corresponding ATC. No legal obligation whatsoever, no one is forcing you, but it is considered very poor practice not to do it, although it is a bit dependent on the situation. There are lots of private strips around, inside the TMA. At those strips you start with the local frequency, and don’t contact the corresponding ATC unless you are going to fly closer to some main airport. Others are so close that you always contact ATC (information). Some are even inside the CTR of a larger field, but then it becomes another thing altogether.
Other times I have been asked/told to either stay below, or route around a certain spot due to incoming airline traffic. But GA vs GA (as in VFR SEP), they will only issue the normal information, although I have never been on direct collision course from what I can remember.
LeSving wrote:
Why is it important that a clear instruction is not being given?
Perhaps it is not important. However, we follow convention, and convention is that to give an instruction requires a different (or higher) level of training.
As I said earlier, I can see that the services provided OCAS could be different and phraesology created to make it clear that radar information was being passed, and in what way this information could be used. As ever its about creating the rules and an envirorment in which both parties (AT and the pilot) understand what is expected of each.
Back to the topic at hand, it would be an excellent way of reducing the number of infringments and allowing GASCo to get on with what they should be doing, instead of getting involved in matters way beyond the remitt of a charitable organsiation that says it is concerned with flight safety, but are clearly in need of the course themselves as they have hopelessly lost their way.
However, just providing a radar service would do nothing. Currently, you can be talking to Farnborough Radar and if you as much as touch CAS, before the controller spots it and directs you away from it, you will get busted and sent down to Gasco (if they have room). With the 5000ft/5nm add-on, havoc is fairly likely…
Seems like there is no consistency for separation requirements. Some places have only 3000ft and three mile add on. This CAA publication gives Southampton as one, and I vaguely recall a controller at Heathrow saying the same applies there.
An infringing aircraft that is not radar identified by Solent Radar becomes unknown traffic; a separation standard of 3nm laterally or 3,000 feet vertically is required between that aircraft and IFR aircraft inbound to, or outbound from, Southampton Airport or operating within Southampton/Solent controlled airspace.
From the above link PDF version
An infringing aircraft that is not radar identified by Solent Radar becomes unknown traffic; a separation standard of 3nm laterally or 3,000 feet vertically is required between that aircraft and IFR aircraft inbound to, or outbound from, Southampton Airport or operating within Southampton/Solent controlled airspace.
That’s interesting. It shows that half the info published on this topic by the CAA is misleading. Maybe they don’t know. It could be that each airport’s MATS Part 2 contains these numbers, but Part 2 is confidential (for commercial reasons, according to the CAA).
Peter wrote:
From the above link PDF version
This shows of utterly nuts the situation must be. 14 pages of “instructions” and examples for how to prevent infringes at one tiny little geographical location. Unbelievable! Do the CAA expect foreigners to 1. find that information, 2. read that information and understand it, 3. remember that information when flying in the UK? After all, infringement is a serious serious thing according to the CAA. It would be like having separate rules for each and every traffic light (start driving when the orange light flashes D R I V E in morse code, but only on weekdays on even week numbers).
The only thing this information do is to scare people off. Whatever, some people may be crazy enough to look at it as a challenge; fly the UK with less than 5 infringement 
In any case, this clearly shows without any doubt whatsoever, that infringement is NOT caused by “bad pilots”, but by:
In short, the airspace structure and communication are designed without any consideration for safety and functionality of GA and GA pilots. Or, maybe the airspace has evolved all by itself without any higher level plan, and GA has been squeezed out.
(There may still be lots of “bad pilots”, but that’s another story )
LeSving I couldn’t agree more.
The other really dissapointing aspect is the content ofhat PDF is so blindingly obvious.
Use QNH rather than RPS – Yet units all over the county pass the RPS. Serious question here does anybody else in the world use RPS?
Also the use of GPS moving map navigation. Yet it’s not tested as part of the PPL skills test. And for that matter its use is not part of the CAA approved training manuals at the ATO that I moonlight at. Come on its time to move PPL navigation into the 21st century.
I wonder if there are other “experts” at work blocking change here?
The guy who is in charge of infringements is no idiot he must see there are some quick wins available. Yet nothing changes. So the real question is why is that the case?
Bathman wrote:
So the real question is why is that the case?
My guess is that it is the path of least resistance for them. It’s far easier to just go after busts and come up with a driving style penalty course than deal with the real issues with the system.
