Peter wrote:
It is not the lawyers
Um. Yes it is. You speak as if you were in the emeetings. You weren’t.
Maybe you should be more involved in the dialogue, and in data, so you can be less reliant on your personal experience and opinion?
Personalising debates is not a good strategy Timothy. You have no idea where I have been and who I have met and discussed what with etc.
I think distraction is the biggest thing, not information
Indeed; information in a raw sense is cheap and easy to get. One challenge is to make use of it when under pressure, distractions, negotiating with ATC, waiting for a handover, etc.
If one was to get really pedantic about this: take this flight for example. There is a lot of Class E around in France, and legally it is critical that you have a clearance if you are IFR. But what it you departed the UK with a “thrown away clearance” (London Control not handling a flight at say FL060, so you fly to France on a 7000 squawk, with no service). It is just as well France couldn’t care less about your IFR/VFR status versus the exact bit of airspace. In the UK, you would be getting busted on probably every such flight.
Peter wrote:
Indeed; information in a raw sense is cheap and easy to get. One challenge is to make use of it when under pressure, distractions, negotiating with ATC, waiting for a handover, etc.
I am experiencing exactly this in adjusting to ADS-B In. In time, I’m sure I’ll better learn to filter the masses of traffic info and focus on those that actually pose an approaching threat. It’s harder than I imagined when there are half a dozen planes that on initial glance appear to be an issue. I also have to learn how well I can trust the altitude and position data – reports vary but so far it looks accurate to me, in my area.
The best approach to flying safety is, like most things in life, Keep It Simple: simple airspace, simple (or no) ATC, just what’s needed and nothing more.
Peter wrote:
I would like airspace warnings but there is no practical way to bring out the audio.
Even my Auster has an aux in on the radio. I keep a cable in the plane. I find it’s eminently practical to get the audio!
Silvaire wrote:
Indeed; information in a raw sense is cheap and easy to get. One challenge is to make use of it when under pressure, distractions, negotiating with ATC, waiting for a handover, etc.
I am experiencing exactly this in adjusting to ADS-B In. In time, I’m sure I’ll better learn to filter the masses of traffic info and focus on those that actually pose an approaching threat. It’s harder than I imagined when there are half a dozen planes that on initial glance appear to be an issue. I also have to learn how well I can trust the altitude and position data – reports vary but so far it looks accurate to me, in my area.
Funnily TCAS traffic is better in that respect. My system only shows threats. Compared to ADS-B traffic generally it is cleaner. If climbing the threats are above, if descending, below. At least with ADS-B, position and altitude are very accurate in my experience.
In Germany we provide separation according to flight rules and airspace requirements according SERA. In C that means separation between IFR flights, also between IFR and VFR. In 99% of the airspace below FL 245 this corresponds to 3 NM or 1000ft. In E separation is only provided between IFR flights.
In practice we regularly have IFR movements 500ft above the airspace shelf altitude, e.g. at 4000ft when C starts at 3500ft. If we see VFR traffic that might trigger a TCAS-RA it’s good practice to keep an airliner a little higher if at all possible, but we don’t have to do that. If the VFR flight is on no frequency and maybe does not even transmit its altitude we just give traffic information.
There is the occasional infringement from time to time, in these cases we try to provide standard lateral or vertical separation. That does not always work of course, especially when someone busts the airspace from below with an IFR flight 500ft above and usually results in the controllers being taken out of their position, both for the paperwork and because such an event can be very unnerving, especially for someone who has no cockpit experience.
Regarding the fine for a 30ft bust: How ridiculous is that? A standard altimeter has to be accurate to +-60ft if I remember correctly. The standard approach radar has an update rate of ca. 5 seconds. We don’t even have a system telling us if someone has just busted some airspace. If no controller sees you doing it, or if it’s within limits that can be explained by inaccuracies of equipment chances are high that you will never hear anything of it. If you happen to produce a TCAS event however things will likely be different. I can’t comment on what will happen though, I don’t know the regulator’s policy on that.
Caba wrote:
Regarding the fine for a 30ft bust: How ridiculous is that? A standard altimeter has to be accurate to +-60ft if I remember correctly. The standard approach radar has an update rate of ca. 5 seconds. We don’t even have a system telling us if someone has just busted some airspace. If no controller sees you doing it, or if it’s within limits that can be explained by inaccuracies of equipment chances are high that you will never hear anything of it. If you happen to produce a TCAS event however things will likely be different. I can’t comment on what will happen though, I don’t know the regulator’s policy on that.
Don’t forget people get technical busts here as well, i.e. XPDR sending an altitude that off by 200-300 ft (one guy at my flight school had that – it was not a bust, he had a witness with him!).
Lower Radar Altitude Service (LARS) in UK apparently (allegedly?) check the displayed altitude with the one you give them during the initial contact for that very reason.
At the GASCo meeting a week or two ago one of the Denham pilots suggested to verify pressure altitude displayed by XPDR and Altimter by setting pressure to 1013 on altimeter for a cross-check before the flight.
EDIT: This technical bust ended with no actual, have to be fair!
Peter wrote:
What separation would you apply against a Mode C (i.e. altitude is “unverified” but is being displayed) aircraft, infringing CAS, but not talking to anybody you know about?
Peter, I think the problem with that scenario < 1000ft is an RA. Once that happens the operator has to report and that means atc must file something. As Caba says, TCAS is the biggest problem here. As of course it supposed to be.
I have had one airspace bust. It was an incorrect pressure setting near Leeds. In the worst turbulence I have even flown in. Had a transponder failure and didn’t go to 1013 while sorting it. Typical UK low transition altitude. Called them (voluntarily – wasn’t asked to) and never heard anything more. I don’t believe there is a massive conspiracy to prosecute pilots in the UK. ATC only report it when they have to.
Like a speed awareness course for driving, they are a pain, and expensive but are better than the alternative.
The “conspiracy” thing again… I don’t recall anyone making that claim, so please don’t reduce this thread to it.
When I get some more numbers from around the place I will come back.
