Peter wrote:
Even if talking to ATC all along, entering the TMZ with no txp, or with Mode A set, will be an instant “TMZ infringement”
Not sure what you mean? It certainly depends on TMZ and who you talk to?
But on that that specific TMZ, I have done it load of times with no transponder you have to “speak to North Weald” or get “TMZ clearance from LARS”, once I was even “offered” a direct Braintree to Duxford on Stansted north stub TMZ (I did not even know it existed and just avoided confusing it with CTA)
On tracking a non-transponder CAS bust, well I know some examples in gliding, pilots get received by someone from the club as they land…
You need an explicit clearance to enter a UK TMZ without the required txp.
Yes, LARS radar explicitly “clears you” to TMZ but North Weald radio just says “welcome back again”
And for a TMZ you need mode S to enter none radio. Mode C won’t cut it.
I superficially followed this thread. What I find amazing is that, despite the original thread title, this discussion is almost exclusively about the UK.
Of course UK pilots make up a large percentage of EuroGA (maybe 50%? Peter will know more) due to it being a forum in their native language and founded and run by two UK pilots. Still, if this topic had any relevance outside the UK, one would expect more contributions from non-UK pilots on how infringements are dealt with in their native country. Yet, there was almost nothing in this thread. There can only be two conclusions:
A) Infringements are not a relevant problem outside of the UK, being seldom enough to not bother the local CAAs/pilots too much
B) the problems outside the UK are underreported on EuroGA (due to the forum user demographics maybe?)
If A) applies, which I think, then the UK should look at where the difference to other countries are.
Of course the unique geography of the UK leads to a pretty crowded airspace in the S. UK, but similar arguments can be made for say The Netherlands, Belgium or N. Italy, as well as the more densely populated parts of Germany (Ruhr!) and other countries.
From an outsider perspective, the lack of proper radar equipped FIS and the disjointed airspace seems to be the main UK problem and should be addressed first before trying to tackle the problems by addressing the pilots themselves.
As a professional in a non-aviation high-risk business, actually the highest-risk business of all because people die regularly in it, it seems strange to me that the UK CAA seem to disregard the well-known fact that systemic risk prevention always beats individual risk prevention by a large margin in achieving a total risk reduction.
MedEwok wrote:
From an outsider perspective, the lack of proper radar equipped FIS and the disjointed airspace seems to be the main UK problem and should be addressed first before trying to tackle the problems by addressing the pilots themselves.
You can see that. I can see that. No doubt alot of UK pilots and even ATC can see that.
However, the UK ATC “system” (and I use that word loosely) is politically set up in such a way that that cant happen….
…Therefore the problem must be elsewhere, right?
At least in The Netherlands you will generally be warned before you infringe – although occasionally you see examples which don’t deserve help – 2000ft NORDO through the Schiphol TMA and the quite busy ATZ/Aerobatics Box of Lelystad is a case that springs to mind. I have frequently been asked to verify my altitude under the Schiphol CTR stubs. In Germany we are often asked if we were aware of airspace ahead/above.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
At least in The Netherlands you will generally be warned before you infringe – although occasionally you see examples which don’t deserve help – 2000ft NORDO through the Schiphol TMA and the quite busy ATZ/Aerobatics Box of Lelystad is a case that springs to mind
That really highlights a problem of attitude in my mind: listening and blabbing on the radio on a too busy frequency generally distracts from maintaining situational awareness. I think this is a lesson learned by those of us who fly (particularly VFR) in truly busy, complex airspace – the idea is to know where you are and go where you need to go, not to talk about it while doing it. The only time I’d see this as beneficial for VFR is for somebody who finds themselves in complex airspace without having studied or understood it beforehand – in other words having never achieved situational awareness in the first place. This is clearly more likely to occur in areas where the airspace is a poorly planned mess requiring excess study – in which case failures are predictable regardless and the root cause should be addressed.
MedEwok wrote:
Still, if this topic had any relevance outside the UK, one would expect more contributions from non-UK pilots on how infringements are dealt with in their native country.
Ok, I’ll bite. This is a recent real case from my club as reported by a flight instructor. Details altered to protect the guilty.
“Solo school flight. Before departure, the student was briefed about airspace borders. Abeam XXX VRP another club aircraft and an ambulance helicopter both report that they are also approaching XXX. My student feels that he should keep out and climbs straight into Stockholm TMA. ATC calls the club and requests that the student calls back. Everything sorted out, no damage done.”
(Note, XXX VRP is located less than 15 NM from Arlanda airport and the TMA floor at that point is 1500’.)
Thank you A_A, in this case everything was dealt with as it should be. Though I guess a student pilot can expect more leniency almost everywhere, even in the UK.
When I was a student pilot, FIS (Bremen Information 125.1) reminded me very generously of airspace still some 15 nm or so ahead on two different occasions (both times I was aware of it myself, also thanks to the excellent built-in moving map my club’s Aquila had).
