Peter wrote:
suggests it is just the one man dishing out the punishments and the committee exists mostly nominally to make it look good. Certainly the numbers (something under 2k a year) could easily be dealt with by the one bloke who is probably on 100k.
ChatGPT could generate letters and sentences at a fraction of that cost
@johnh as far as France goes you are over thinking transition altitudes.
OCAS the TA is 3000ft AMSL or 1000ft AGL whichever is the highest. In your area apart from the coastal area your TA is probably going to be 1000ft AGL. So along the coast it is going to be FL35 VFR and going up to Avignon whatever the leve is at 1500 ft AGL which is likely to be something like FL75 or above. It of course also depends on your track.
Inside CAS or IFR you don’t even need to think about the TA as ATC basically does it for you just listen for the words descend or climb to xxxxthousand feet QNH yyyy or descend or climb to FLxxx and just set your altimeter accordingly.
This hasn’t changed in the last half century why complicate matters now?
I understand that those trained in the US will think thar using altitude up to 18000ft is simpler and maybe it is. But a hectopascal difference at higher altitudes gives a lot of room for error and in European crowded airspace that’s not a good thing.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The question therefore is, does it? Or is that a hypothetical case which only underlines the apparent fundamental distrust between pilots and their ATC/CAA in the UK?
It cannot. Because it’s not a matter of the CAS limit, it’s a matter of the aircraft’s vertical position. And while many here theorize what that could be if you set this setting or use that or the other procedure, there are defined codified procedures that we are supposed to use as I have repeatedly linked in my comments. There is no ambiguity. It’s crystal clear when and how our aircraft’s position is determined. And at or below the TA your vertical position cannot be determined to be in the FLs. Why not? Again, because the published regulations for aircraft procedures says so. Read ICAO Annex 2, read ICAO Doc 8168, ICAO Doc 4444 or read SERA or read your UK regs. They will all say the same, as is published in the UK AIP.
There is no ifs buts or whatnots, there is no guessing or theorizing. There is an agreed system in place for how the aircraft’s vertical position is to be determined and it’s in place for our and the safety of everyone else in the air and frankly, you all should know this already. The fact that is even a debate is really scaring me to fly outside CAS, just so you know. Since if I hear you report your vertical position I want that to mean the same thing as it would if I reported that same vertical position.
And finally one last time, if you are at or below the TA, you cannot be inside a FL boundary of an airspace. The two are simply incompatible as per the regulations that govern flight and specifically that govern how an aircraft’s vertical position is to be determined.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The real problem is just that no one knows how the CAA is going to interpret the lower CAS limit in that situation. We have been told that they don’t take altimeter accuracy, QNH roundoff or transponder encoder roundoff into account – all of which could cause a transponder return to show that the aircraft in inside controlled airspace either when it actually isn’t or when it actually is but the instrument readings available to the pilot shows that it is not.
Why not do what is published in the UK AIP and stop the guesswork?:
ENR 1.4 ATS AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
1 ATS AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION
1.4 When considering the vertical profile of a flight within Class G airspace, pilots are reminded to select a level that is compliant with SERA.5025(a) and ORS4 No 1423. In order to mitigate the risk of infringing controlled airspace, pilots are recommended to plan their flights to operate:
not closer than 2 NM from the boundary of controlled airspace.
at least 200 FT above the upper limit of Control Zones, Control Areas including TMAs.
at least 200 FT below the lower limit of a Control Area, including TMAs
1.5 When operating proximate to control areas in turbulent, or in ascending or descending air masses, as part of effective Threat and Error Management, when able to, pilots may wish to consider increasing the 200 FT recommended spacing to mitigate inadvertent vertical deviations that could result in an infringement.
1.6 Pilots are further reminded that, when operating within Class G airspace within 500 FT of the base of controlled airspace, they should consider the risk of encountering wake turbulence generated by aircraft operating at the lowest available level within the controlled airspace above.
Pretty straightforward what they want you to do, no?
Ok, I have to admit I have similar concerns as @hazek has, because yes, it does not make sense at all. And yes, some of the statements here are outright wrong, but as opposed to him I can kind of see where they are coming from.
The Solent area has been mentioned here several times. So I looked it up and actually, there is a contradiction there:
On the Southhampton chart attached here, TA clearly is defined at 6000 ft. However, various airspaces “A” have a lower limit of FL055. How is that possible and how is it handled?
However, below that airspace A there is in almost all cases an airspace D which implies CAS starts much lower than airspace A. So the actual problem there would be if you are flying in one of those “D” areas under ATC control, but may infringe the “A” airspace while flying legally at say 5000 ft QNH, with the upper limit of airspace D being 5500 ft. That is a 500 ft margin. So the fact that there is an airspace labled with a FL055 lower limit in an area which has a 6000 ft TA does not make sense to me in the least as you rightly say, FL055 is not a valid level in an area which has a TA of 6000 ft. In my opinion, the lower airspace limit of the airspace A above the D airspaces should be 5500 ft, not FL055.
If you compare that to the chart shown on a site concerning airspace infringements
that airspace A is not even there.
I honestly have to say I’ve never seen any such airspace mess anywhere. But clearly, in this area, flying outside CAS means to fly in the region of 2000-2500 ft as practically everything else is CAS D.
The AIP stuff in hazek’s post is just BS. It does not belong in the AIP. I mean, they may as well tell you how to start the engine. “Pilots are reminded” – what kind of BS is this? Who wrote it, we know, but how did it get sneaked into the AIP without anybody noticing?
You either bust or you don’t. To bust you have to cross the line. And everything in aviation is a criminal offence so they have to prove it, in the face of any evidence the defence comes up with.
Of course the above is wishful thinking because you won’t get much unless you take it to court, which is achievable only by sticking your middle finger up to the CAA, and then they will permanently (they call it “provisional”, to block any internal appeal routes) remove your license.
So the CAA man is a de facto judge jury and executioner. Your only defence short of doing the above para is to come up with a GPS track showing you were outside.
TA/TL is nothing to do with the CAA busting you or not. If you infringe the airspace shown on the VFR chart (which is itself based on the AIP), you have busted. End of story. Yeah, maybe the CAA drafted some FL airspace below the TA but they own the air and have nobody to answer to.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The Solent area has been mentioned here several times. So I looked it up and actually, there is a contradiction there:
If that’s where this is about then there is absolutely no dilemma and no contradiction, if only we consult the AIP. (I didn’t know about where this was for exactly until right now)
First in terms of the CTR:
Next the CTA:
And finally in terms of the en-route Class A:
In summary:
If Solent CTA is active, the transition altitude is 6000ft and it is contiguous with the Class A hence the Class A lower limit changes to 5500ft altitude.
If they are not active, the transition altitude is standard 3000ft and the Class A lower limit is as published FL55.
See? No need to speculate, no need to pontificate about this or that hypothesis, the rules are clear. As they should be.
Peter wrote:
The AIP stuff in hazek’s post is just BS.
I have to say I’m very conflicted about you personally Peter. You are doing a great thing for GA by running this forum and I appreciate your work online a lot. But on the other hand you are a terrible and dangerous influence on pilots personally. As exhibited by your video in the Swiss Alps and by your comments in here you have a terrible attitude towards air regulations and the rules that you are supposed to follow in the air for your own and the safety of everyone else. Nobody is perfect and we all have our flaws but if I may, maybe it would be a good idea to go read up on Human Performance subject one more time and refresh your knowledge, specifically the chapter on Hazardous Attitudes. It may just save your life one day.
hazek wrote:
If they are not active, the transition altitude is standard 3000ft and the Class A lower limit is as published FL55.See? No need to speculate, no need to pontificate about this or that hypothesis, the rules are clear. As they should be.
Well, if an IR(R) pilot flies at 5000 with very low pressure, then he will be inside Class A according to CAA, no matter what. And as an IRR holded one doesn’t have access to Class A, then that would be an illegal flight.
You see AIP also says something about margin of error in realtion to altitude hold (200ft), but CAA will still punish you if you are shown to be 30ft inside the airspace.
Welcome to our world.
arj1 wrote:
Well, if an IR(R) pilot flies at 5000 with very low pressure, then he will be inside Class A according to CAA
No, you would be flying FL50 if the Solent CTA is not active and that would put you outside the Class A. If you were flying 5000ft that would only be possible if the Solent CTA is active and in that case the Class A boundary is 5500ft putting you again outside it.
