From here
Firstly, I’m ALL for the UK having access to LPV approaches once again. Its utter nonsense that aerodromes that DID once have an LPV option are no longer deemed “safe” when the signal STILL exists and airborne equipment is still capable of receiving and processing it!!
However, I must comment on….
Peter wrote:
like it did with the artificial “cylinder” in its no-prisoners infringements policy.
I appreciate your position on this, although I completely disagree, HOWEVER there are a few points I need to clarify…..
1. “A key aspect of the UK system is that talking to ATC, and even talking to a radar unit which is providing you with a radar service (called Traffic Service, or the rarely used Deconfliction Service, in the UK), does not get you off the hook for an infringement.”
In anything other than Class A I don’t see how this cant make sense to you?? THE PILOT is responsible for the navigation of the flight….As an example if you were speaking to Solent Radar and then YOU decide to go careering off into Farnboroughs CTZ then that’s on YOU!! They should give you a nudge (if they’re not too busy and actually notice your track is a bit off) but they are under NO obligation to do so. Its THE PILOTs responsibility to avoid infringing any CAS irrespective of the ATSU they are in contact with (unless THAT ATSU) has provided them with an EXPLICIT clearance to operate there!!!
2.
Basically you have to assume everything printed on the chart is watched, with a zero tolerance.
It is a REQUIREMENT for an ATCO to fill out a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) if an aircraft has infringed Controlled Airspace without a clearance. It is NOT discretionary….the" Mandatory" bit kind of gives it away. As an ATCO I am required to file a report and I will be subject to disciplinary and licensing procedures MYSELF if I do not…..So if you don’t infringe then I DONT have to fill out forms. What the CAA does with these reports is NOTHING to do with me…..I have NO say in the process and what the outcome will be.
Just to clear that up…
SD
[ post moved to existing thread on the topic ]
Well, sure, you are an ATCO and making the standard circular argument.
Someone might ask: what was wrong with the old system, which worked and which is used by every other country?
In anything other than Class A I don’t see how this cant make sense to you?? THE PILOT is responsible for the navigation of the flight… [etc]
It’s a good rant but is making a point which nobody is arguing with 
although I completely disagree
Which text on that web page is incorrect?
The best bits were obtained under FOIA (not by me, btw) 
Stuff like the 5000ft artificial cylinder are from NATS publications. I know this thread is way too long now for anyone to read it whole but it’s all there!
And then the really daft GASCO pilot punishment course
Oh and I almost forgot the online exam with loads of bogus questions
Spamcan_Defender wrote:
In anything other than Class A I don’t see how this cant make sense to you?? THE PILOT is responsible for the navigation of the flight….As an example if you were speaking to Solent Radar and then YOU decide to go careering off into Farnboroughs CTZ then that’s on YOU!! They should give you a nudge (if they’re not too busy and actually notice your track is a bit off) but they are under NO obligation to do so. Its THE PILOTs responsibility to avoid infringing any CAS irrespective of the ATSU they are in contact with (unless THAT ATSU) has provided them with an EXPLICIT clearance to operate there!!!
I think we are all in agreement of these facts. The question is whether or not ATS should be proactive in preventing incursions.
It is a REQUIREMENT for an ATCO to fill out a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) if an aircraft has infringed Controlled Airspace without a clearance. It is NOT discretionary….the" Mandatory" bit kind of gives it away. As an ATCO I am required to file a report and I will be subject to disciplinary and licensing procedures MYSELF if I do not…..So if you don’t infringe then I DONT have to fill out forms. What the CAA does with these reports is NOTHING to do with me…..I have NO say in the process and what the outcome will be.
The point is that it is not a given that it must be an absolute requirement and not at the discretion of the ATCO. That is a choice someone has made and different choices have been made by other national authorities.
Spamcan_Defender wrote:
I have NO say in the process and what the outcome will be.
I think we’re all aware of that, no one is blaming ATCOs. The system is where the fault lies – the fragmented, un-joined up nature of UK airspace where a VFR handoff is the exception rather than the norm doesn’t help. The lack of application of any sort of tolerances puts the burden on ATCOs to have to make an MOR when someone allegedly nicks airspace by 0.05NM or 100 feet, when the equipment resolution and precision is not sufficient to say with certainty that an infringement even occurred. The design of systems ATCOs have to use that is so poor that pilots have to phone a unit first before getting a transit – an absurd practise unheard of in other countries (see here )
That doesn’t mean every MOR is an overreaction by the system, of course. I’m not sure what the policy is on minor airspace infringements here in the Isle of Man, but while flying I did hear a couple of weeks ago a PA-28 get all the way to Douglas (well inside the Ronaldsway CTR) without calling ATC or even being on the frequency (they called him perhaps half a dozen times), and when he finally did call ATC did tell him they would have to file an MOR. I don’t have any disagreement with that case, the offending pilot managed to fly several miles into the CTR without calling anyone and given how simple our airspace layout is here, it was a pretty egregious bust even if the pilot was navigating with a paper chart (the landmarks are rather obvious).
As I posted before, the MOR “confidential” circulation list is vast and inevitably some end up in the dumpster which I walk past daily The contents is utterly damning – as per the extracts I posted.
The system is where the fault lies – the fragmented, un-joined up nature of UK airspace
Sure, but this has been thus since for ever (due to lack of ATSOCAS funding – a political decision wrapped up with NATS privatisation etc etc, UK being mostly G, no IFR charges below 2000kg, etc, etc) whereas the no-prisoners pilot punishment policy came in only a few years ago. It has done zero to reduce busts (as posted before many times, the data is there for all to see – again forced on the CAA via FOIA; they wanted to bust people secretly and without publishing the decision rules) and causes loads of people to fly non-txp or mode A only.
Thanks to the no prisoners taken UK policy, I made my first trip from France to Scotland beginning of this week, in stealth mode. Also not having to listen to the useless ATC chatter made the flight so more relaxing, and will be the future for me
I’d now just wish that SD also gave the possibility for one to open the filed FPL once airborne. This would also prevent the obvious disappointment of ATC when asked for no services at all thank you, but just to open the FPL and leave the frequency goodbye.
@Spamcan_Defender I think the point being made about ATC involvement in the unsatisfactory airspace situation is about the fragmentation of the system with no joined-up management of adjacent spaces.
Thus if and when an aircraft busts airspace, the controller concerned is taken totally by surprise and the aircraft is usually completely unknown to them. Airspace boundaries in the UK are generally complete Chinese walls, with the controller responsible for inside having absolutely nothing to do with outside or adjacent airspace, nor routine cooperation across boundaries.
Thus if I’m transiting Solent airspace heading towards Farnborough, they’re not going to proactively arrange with Farnborough for an onward clearance into their airspace. It wouldn’t even occur to them, as far as fhey are concerned the aircraft leaves their area of responsibility and then may as well no longer exist. If I ask them to coordinate, I get a “not my job mate” sort of reaction. As a result I’m inside Solent calling Farnborough on box 2 to negotiate an onward clearance in time to avoid holding, and therefore not monitoring Solent properly as I should be.
In other countries the ATC system takes a much more satisfactory big-picture view of airspace management. The same system looks after an aircraft whether it is inside or outside, and a transition between the two is the easiest thing in the world.
In other countries the ATC system takes a much more satisfactory big-picture view of airspace management
Absolutely. And when on a flight information frequency will, most often than not, warn one about any CAS or restricted area ahead, maybe suggesting a heading, or even coordinating a crossing clearance ahead.
Stark difference to the UK where info and ATC are each rubbing their hands in anticipation of their prey nearing, and then finally infringing the holly CAS spider web, thereby setting off the whole MOR etc process. And as a top priority justifying everyone’s job in the process…
Dan wrote:
Absolutely. And when on a flight information frequency will, most often than not, warn one about any CAS or restricted area ahead, maybe suggesting a heading, or even coordinating a crossing clearance ahead.
Stark difference to the UK where info and ATC are each rubbing their hands in anticipation of their prey nearing, and then finally infringing the holly CAS spider web, thereby setting off the whole MOR etc process. And as a top priority justifying everyone’s job in the process…
Could not agree more. During some recent flights through CH-FR-BE-NL, 100% of the controllers were extremely helpful and constructive. We had a “pop up” MIL restricted area near Nancy, and the Strasboug FIS controller was going out of her way to let everyone know. It was impressive. We see the same in CH – the FIS proactively warns about airspace.
I had “a friend” climb into GVA controlled airspace without a clearance, and the controller kindly contacted “my friend” to ask them to correct their QNH. Totally constructive, cooperative, and professional. Not punitive.
The situation in the UK is clearly a management problem – no idea what their motivations are. Being humans, they may not even know themselves.
Regrettably Mr Defender fires an RPG (a Russian one, date-coded 1944, so it fails to explode properly) into some wasp nest and runs off But, people often use the same nickname across multiple forums, and in this case you will find Mr Defender doing this over a 20 year period.
Unfortunately this topic is always a wasp nest. NATS is probably a world leader in internal politics and this spills out all over the internet. The CAA is doing the same, with CAA staff posting under nicknames… we’ve had quite a few here. The style is always the same.
The UK ATC/airspace/pilot-busting system cannot be defended objectively by anyone inside it. It can be defended only in circular terms, which is why NATS ATC get so upset when somebody tries to steer the debate to an objective one.
The origins of the present cocked-up system are deeply embedded in many conflicting but also complementary factors e.g.
And nobody seems to know who instigated the present pilot busting system. I am 99% sure it wasn’t Robert Gratton who has been running it for some years; it was possibly the DfT who I had some comms with (posted further back here) which indeed indicated that it was somebody inside there.
