This whole ‘CAS Bust’ thing seems to be largely a UK problem
I would be amazed if that was the case, because PPL training is fairly similar everywhere.
The USA has a better system (e.g. two way radio contact entitles you into C and D) but speaking of Europe, I cannot see why there should be significantly fewer busts except for some peripheral reasons e.g.
The last 3 above are big factors in Europe. The 1st one I don’t know.
It is much easier to argue that during visual, conventional stopwatch navigation you unfortunately missed a turning point or mistook some feature on the ground, than to admit that you had a GPS onboard but flew right into some CAS anyway due to carelessness or being distracted or not using your equipment properly. That might account for some underreporting of GPS use in these cases.
That’s a fair point but, in the UK, the pilot who would choose to conceal the use of GPS would be exactly (and only) the type alleged to be one of the “hardcore” pilots who exist mostly outside the system. I would not have said this 10 years ago but things have moved on.
This whole ‘CAS Bust’ thing seems to be largely a UK problem.
I like the " seems " bit here 
Are there really more infringements in the UK, or do they keep a sharper lookout, or are they more verbose?
My own country has complex airspace enough, and I know of two infringements I have committed and one more I suspect, in less than 150 hours as PIC. But I never got any complaint (bar a very well-toned comment from EBAW tower, gentle yet clear), neither did I see any statistics or articles.
RobertL18C wrote:
The latest AOPA magazine in the UK has a good article on the subject
I think the problem lies on page 13 of said mag, where they tout the Whizz wheel (E6B) as a great tool. For crying out loud, this is 2016 !!!
AdamFrisch – I agree with both your postings. ATC (especialy the “big boys”) by and large give the impression over the RT that if you are GA then they really don’t want you in their airspace so do not seem to routinely give access. Two things the statistics perhaps should show which will put GA into a different perspective are how many busts are by the military (and look at the numbers, they are very much a minority airspace user) and how many CAT “busts” are recorded? Of course with CAT they cannot go wrong because there is someone on the ground telling them every single action they must take BUT I have been on the receiving end of CAT busting their assigned altitude and the Pilot complained to Radar that he was too close to a small aircraft! He was BTW asked over the RT to report to airfield ops on landing. Rant over.
172driver wrote:
I think the problem lies on page 13 of said mag, where they tout the Whizz wheel (E6B) as a great tool.
Well, it actually IS a great tool. I have things like density alt, TAS, conversions, remaining / used fuel MUCH quicker than on any app (especially when my device runs skydemon :-) ). But it is not the only way to do things.
172driver wrote:
- totally inadequate training. This may well have changed now, but when I did my UK license (conversion from FAA), I wasn’t even allowed to use the VOR and NDB that were installed in the airplane! Seriously, navigating by stopwatch and E6B wind correction in this day and age is laughable (for the record – I had a good laugh and passed on first test). Don’t even mention GPS….
When was this? Part-FCL (or to be precise: the AMCs) prescribe the use of GPS / VOR. I cannot believe you can get a syllabus approved without GPS. But to teach the underlying principles, you need some lessons the old fashioned way (of course not for a conversion, unless the aim is to refresh the backbone). Knowing your way just with a map and an compass – be it an electronic map – is vital as backup, because it works all the time. Plus, it is great fun to find your way without screens and black boxes who tell you where to go.
The UK airspace system is pretty straightforward to understand, in my view. I have flown there just once, but had no trouble with the airspace. The biggest question was what basic service is actually for…
…on the iPad thing – I have a Garmin 196 which gives excellent situational awareness and flight planning tools. The iPad is just not that robust, both in battery life (this is a no electrics Super Cub), and ability to switch off if it overheats.
Fingers crossed that on my 41st year of GA VFR flying I don’t suffer an airspace bust.
The airspace alerting system of the easyVFR kit is excellent – with breadcrumbs automatically stored. Getting confirmation that my pilotage is on track is all I am looking for, as these bottlenecks require you to be eyes out 100 % not staring at a magenta line.
I am going to take a slightly different view. In the years that I have been flying I believe controllers have become a lot better at handling GA. It is not perfect and it definitely is not as good as in the States, but it has improved. In my experience it is very rare not to be given access to class D, with the exception of Stansted and Manchester who could both do a great deal better.
The airspace in the south east is excessively complex, but this may be a feature of the number of CAT airports occupying a relatively small amount of space. Would the airpsace be better organised in the States given the same circumstances, and if so how?
There does seem to be two distinct catgories of pilots in the UK, those that embrace GPS and sensible radio and mode C use, and those if not against GPS, certainly against using the radio if they can possibly avoid doing so and their transponder, assuming they have one. This is all very well, until they infringe, when they make the job of AT far more difficult and give the rest of GA a bad name. I dont think that class of pilot is as large in the States or in Europe. I can think of plenty of occasions when I wouldnt have infringed, but was leaving my descent late, or routing close to airspace, to be warned in plenty of time by the controller, and quickly able to satisfying him that I knew where I was and what I was doing. In short if only pilot’s that were in any doubt at all were talking to someone most infringements could be avoided before they ever occurred.
I do agree that there is a distinct “attitude to GA”, but I find this comes across from many of the “official” publications and other “do gooders” rather than from actual controllers who, as I have already said, do a pretty good job.
BTW so far as the original quote is concerned try as I might to find the usual inflamatory sentence in Peter’s cutting, I have to say I cant and therefore as a factual “article” it seems to be written without any particular axe to grind, exactly as it should be. Mind you there is an argument that to have any impact it needs to be inflamatory, and yet another argument, that the people that need to be targeted are exactly the people who will not be reading it any way!
mh wrote:
When was this?
Don’t have my logbook to hand right now, but IIRC 2002(ish)
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Would the airpsace be better organised in the States given the same circumstances, and if so how?
Have a look at the sectional and terminal area charts for the L.A. area (skyvector.com if you don’t have them, check the TAC side panel for the corridors). While there is a big block of class B (LAX) in the middle, there are numerous VFR corridors to cross it. There certainly is no shortage of airports around here (for a list see here) and it all works fine.
One UK practice which I really appreciate is the listening watch – ATC know you are on frequency, see your squawk and if you are Mode S have your call sign, and ATC calls are kept to an essential minimum.
Trying to get a VFR crossing through Stansted when Essex radar is handling rush hour arrivals (both for Luton and Stansted) and departures is unrealistic, however during quieter periods they are very helpful.
ATC know you are on frequency, see your squawk and if you are Mode S have your call sign, and ATC calls are kept to an essential minimum
What’s special about that? It is standard practice to me, even OCAS which means talking to FIS, not to ATC.
