I think we skipped “unkown intentions”, when in RT contact they know you are VFR and your intentions, hence, you are not separated from IFR in class D (with transponder or without)
I flew over Luton in motor-glider many times with live A320s sequence landing, +5000ft would have stopped the show, I think those upsized separations applies only when the traffic is unkown?
Yes; the +5000ft is for traffic whose altitude has not been verified (over the radio). Once it is verified, this add-on shrinks to +1000ft.
+1000ft is what all of Europe (except Belgium) applies to non verified targets, AFAICT.
The UK must be getting far more losses of separation than the others, which is wonderful if you are trying to build a case for doing something drastic.
If you were transiting Luton, obviously with an ATC clearance, then all this is immaterial and I guess they apply a 1000 or 2000ft separation, according to whether they think somebody below you is going to go around.
Last I read, fairly recently, he was still looking for interviewees.
When we drilled into it sounded highly suspect to me.
He’s just posted elsewhere " I do agree there will always be those who simply can’t be bothered and I am not sure how we can legislate for them." [my bold] which gives the game away a bit…
I genuinely don’t know why some people are being so harsh here.
If we are well and truly willing to help reduce infringements, then contributions to research projects should help with that.
Not sure I agree with some suggesting there are darker ulterior motives behind this project when it comes to dealing with prosecutions and the like.
James_Chan wrote:
If we are well and truly willing to help reduce infringements, then contributions to research projects should help with that.
It depends on the research question. The question that should be asked is “why do infringements happen”. Instead this particular project asked “why do pilots infringe” and “why pilots continue to make mistakes”. The difference between the two research questions may seem subtle but is actually fundamental.
I quote myself from the second post in this thread:
Airborne_Again wrote:
It seems that your research is pilot-centered — indeed, you seem to make the implicit assumption that infringements are primarily or even solely caused by “pilot mistakes”. In reality the design of airspace and ATC/FIS services are major causal factors in causing pilots to make “mistakes” in the first place. Any research in this area should use a systems approach — not a pilot-centered approach.
A google on the email address posted openly in post #1 immediately shows the person is/was “on the student list” of the institution. What this means, we don’t know, but we do know that roughly 100% of the CAA infringements enforcement dept. has a Masters in Air Safety Management, albeit from a different London college.
However any regular EuroGA reader cannot avoid noticing a number of people popping up, posting basically the same stuff in the same language, tone and general attitude, and then disappearing. Like the guy claiming to be a pilot who sails from Jersey, who vanished as soon as somebody asked him about anchorage off Sark. Last year, they just kept popping up… and always in the same 1 or 2 threads related to pilot criminality, and always with zero interest in anything to do with flying a plane.
It reminds me of a great line from Sea of Love where Al Pacino is chatting up some woman; she asks him what he does; he replies “a printer” and she says “my ex was a cop; if you’re a printer, I’ve got a dick”.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The difference between the two research questions may seem subtle but is actually fundamental.
That may not be obvious to even pilots…
