Review of Radio, Navigation and Ops training

Actively discourage flying non-radio unless the pilot is thoroughly familiar with the terrain and landmarks being overflown and the airspace structure.
Use smartphones (or dedicated hardware) to record GPS tracks and use them for debriefing after navigation exercises (which, incidentally, may include a few mock prohibited areas along the route).
Explain that ATCOs/FISOs don’t bite.

I am sure the majority of the 700 busts are little ones. I have done a few myself, nipping a corner of some CAS. However I do recall there are a few hundred major ones.

These figures have been fairly constant over many years, despite GPS etc etc.

So what is preventing things from improving?

In the UK we have a very stagnant PPL community. Very few new people come in each year and stay in.

Within this community, the only opportunity for any kind of training is the 2-yearly class rating revalidation test, which will be passed so long as the instructor survives the flight. Broken legs are OK because he can sign the pilot off using just one hand This needs to be modified, with specific things which must be passed otherwise there is no signature.

In the case of a major bust in which an inability to navigate is apparent, a visit of the instructor who last signed off the pilot would be a good idea.

Such a proposal would be resisted because it is not aligned with the PPL training syllabus, which is normally implemented as a GPS-free environment (visual nav).

1) Use of GPS (by which I mean proper training, not just how to switch it on)
2) Strongly discourage no-radio ops
3) provide better charts
4) drag the country into the 21st century and provide proper ATC

Not gonna happen…..

Strongly discourage no-radio ops

I know it ’s an old discussion, and one that one can really argue about.

But I just won’t agree with it. Pilots should be able to fly “on their own” OCAS and not with a “helping hand” from ATC.

The above suggests that someome who flys without radio contact in uncontrolled airspace with someone is an outlaw or so. That’s really a perversion of the truth.

I see it in flying schools too. Students are taught to absolutely be in contact with ATC or FIS at any time. It totally blurs the lind between CAS and OCAS.

No. It has to remain clear that it is the pilot’s job to know where he is and what he needs to do in that class of airspace. Nothing wrong with contacting FIS or ATC in case you are uncertain or need specific help. But please: not as a default plan of action.

Actively discourage flying non-radio unless the pilot is thoroughly familiar with the terrain and landmarks being overflown and the airspace structure.

Is there a correlation about NORDO flying and airspace infringements? Otherwise you could as well discourage all – lets say – catholic ops, unless over known territory. That resembles the same problem solving mechanism in my eyes.

When I am flying without electronic helpers, usually I am much more aware of my position and the surrounding airspace, than when I fly with the help of a tablet. I have made the experience that people tend to plan routes much closer to restricted airspaces when they actually use a GPS, than they would if they had to rely on terrestial navigation. Problem is, they then have a hard time correcting for wind and a small distraction can lead to a clear airspace infringement. Following this observation, you should discourage the use of GPS. Of course that would be rubbish, but you should, however, encourage to keep a sensible distance to any airspace borders.

The same goes for the hight. When flying below airspace, I have witnessed many people flying exactly on the depicted altitude. Let’s say C starts at 4500 ft, they would happily fly at 4500 ft with a QNH from 200 NM away and without checking the altimeters error. This screams infringement all over.

Best way to avoid airspace infringements is to simplify airspace structures and keeping them as small as possible and only as big as really necessary.

Regarding radio vs. non-radio: being able to fly on one’s own is a requirement, and it’s checked on the skill test. Being alert and ahead of your aircraft is good airmanship, and it can’t be underestimated. However, we are all human, and maintaining radio contact shifts one of the slices of the proverbial Swiss cheese. You give the ATC a chance to advise you not only of an upcoming infringement (which they do), but also of conflicting traffic (even if you didn’t request it), problems with your transponder (you won’t believe how often it occurs), QNH changes (happened a lot this year) and a lot of other things. You also make ATC’s job a bit easier by taking one unknown out of their equations.

Pilots should be able to fly “on their own” OCAS and not with a “helping hand” from ATC

@Bosco: this is not about a ‘helping hand’ and should, in fact, be read in conjunction with my item # 5. The SE UK simply isn’t the place to guesstimate your position and bimble about idly. VERY different from many places on the continent and, of course, the US. But you know that….

I don’t think there is anywhere in Europe or the USA where you can fly without being pretty sure of your position.

Talking to ATC has massively variable benefits according to where you are.

In say France, you can do a flight like this and rely on ATC (which is 100% radar equipped down there) to clear you through, and tell you to avoid some active area.

In the UK, that will not work at all. For example I once flew from Shoreham to Wellesbourne (basically a northern track out of Shoreham, 2400ft as usual, and avoiding the London TMA). Very unusually for me (probably the one time in a year) I had not checked the notams, and there was some royal flight. The lady ATCO at Farnborough asked me if I knew about the notam and apologetically I said No and asked if they can route me around that. She absolutely refused to help and just sent me on a track of 270 for about 30 miles (basically telling me that she was going to teach me a lesson for being a bad boy) and then pretended to be too busy to pick me up again. Eventually I got back on track, about half an hour later and after a massive dogleg. That sort of unprofessional behaviour is very unusual but I fly own there very often and the few radar units the UK has which take on GA radio are not in the business of offering any kind of enroute navigation service. London Control do that but only on a Eurocontrol IFR flight plan, and you have to be high enough to be in CAS the whole time. The extent of what say Farnborough Radar will do is pick up the CAS bust, hopefully while you are talking to them, tell you to immediately turn left/right/descend and then you are back on your own. That is what say Farnborough gets some millions a year LARS funding for – it reduces CAS busts so a business case can be made for it. No business case = no funding for the service. So in the UK you are practically on your own and the benefit of using the radio is just a second level of protection against a screw-up, but you aren’t likely to get a continued assistance once the bust has been resolved.

On EuroGA we are mostly “modern pilots” so we don’t get the old UK “GPS is bad, use your Mk1 eyeball, my son, we beat the Germans twice with that so it is good enough for you” debates which still pop up elsewhere, but

• GPS is still not being taught in the PPL (and the industry would resist any mandatory usage because it means buying some kit)
• it will be many years before the training fleet is updated with modern stuff (with panel mounted GPS) via gradual modernisation
• a lot of people have gone it alone and fly with e.g. Skydemon (and it’s obvious from those I have flown with that most don’t understand how to configure the user interface which has many “IT-geek” options)
• a lot of pilots who have been flying for decades navigate visually, which works most of the time if you do simple routes

I do not believe the UK VFR charts are difficult. The grass is always greener… Except around the famous Belfast bit they are 100% non-ambiguous (unlike say the Jepps or the above-linked French one) in terms of which airspace is where. The shapes of say the London TMA are determined by the various sids/stars and missed approach tracks and they aren’t going to be changed anytime soon (Gatwick is not likely to say “hey guys we all know everything is or can be radar vectored so let’s scrap the 53 pages (just counted them) of sids/stars which are never used”) and anyway making the LTMA smaller would just make the busts take place nearer the airport(s) i.e. much more dangerous.

Education is going to be the only way, and the only opportunity for that with the existing pilot community is the 2-yearly class rating reval flight.