CTA depiction on VFR Charts

[FlyOnTrack]

A few years ago, the official VFR charts were changed to give a definite tint to CTRs to make them stand out. Does the panel think that a similar scheme ought to be given to CTAs with low bases (eg: 1500' or below) to highlight them better or at least something like that trialed? Or any other ideas to make the lower ones more obvious? It is the case that some of the lower ones are bust and the pilot reports that a step down to 1500' wasn't noticed. I know we might get view like 'get rid of the low CTA' but things like that would take a lot of agreement, process, redesign and therefore time, and this is more to do with looking for potentially quick gains such as better depiction on what we have. Nothing is 'on the way' right now, it's just views being sought.

[James Chan]

I posted this on another forum already but I include it again for discussion among other LAA members:

Could the depiction of airspace south east of Belfast do with some reduction in clutter? I think what most pilots are interested in are the vertical and lateral boundaries of the terminal airspace. Not the individual bits broken up inside it?

[Brian Hope]

Are we talking quick fix or knee jerk here? Have we any properly researched data that tells us who it is that busts this airspace – owners, club pilots, permit or CoA types – and what sort of navigational techniques they are using – GPS/moving map, chart and compass, conventional navaids. Until we know that we cannot really begin to solve the issues in an efficient, targeted manner.
The different groups of operators do tend to fly and navigate differently, and have different equipment available – a permit two seater for instance is likely to have a decent GPS/moving map and the pilot is likely to do more cross country navigating than a club pilot in a C152 with a VOR he doesn’t really know how to use properly. And a flexwing microlight guy is likely to route around airspace more so than a guy in a well-equipped Arrow.
If we understood who the major infringement culprits were we could better understand why they are having problems and perhaps come up with some real fixes. I don’t have that information and don’t even know if it is available. I do know that when Farnborough Radar carried out an exercise a couple of years ago to warn aircraft that it was speaking to if they thought they were likely to bust controlled airspace, the majority of warned aircraft were reported as club machines that were in the vicinity of their bases. Does that mean they were being flown by low time, inexperienced pilots? That the aircraft were probably not carrying GPS? That the pilots were bimbling around locally rather than on a planned cross country? Who knows? But that sort of information would certainly help in the quest to make quick gains by targeting where the major sector of the problem lies.
With the suggested Radio Mandatory Zones we are already likely to get yet more demarcation on the charts soon enough, tinting low level CTA’s may or may not help the current problems but personally I’d rather it were done on the basis of some research rather than purely on supposition. I’m also not a fan of sticky plasters being used as an excuse for not fixing the problem properly. If better arrangement of CTAs is possible to alleviate a lowering airspace problem then that is what should be being done, ‘we do not have the time, money, resource’ is simply not a satisfactory response if the powers that be really want us to believe that the infringement problem is, as it should be, being given the highest priority and being taken seriously by all concerned.

[gasax]

I'm very much with Brian on this and related topics.

Virtually all of these measures appear to be piecemeal 'fiddling'. If I fly the length of France I get joined up ATC (with a huge amount more than a Basic non-service), I get guaranteed transits of controlled airspace and the rules are pretty straight forward - I can even get prior warning of when danger and low level areas are GOING to be in use. Frankly it makes the UK look like a total mess.

Of course it would be totally unrealistic to expect the same situation here - after all they are foreigners and naturally hugely subsidised and inefficient....

But how can any of these changes to the rules, charts or even obscure things like Alpha suffixes to call signs be made when there is so little underlying understanding of the root causes of the problem. People like Irv have put a lot of effort into improving understanding etc - but the authorities have as far as I can see doen nothing to eliminate the root causes - most of which I suspect come from the complexity of the arrangements and the 'rules for rules sake' approach which aviation has in the UK.

Some serious dispassionate research is necessary to understand the root causes - or is it as simple as colour blindness? The authorities apporach seems to be it is just ignorance - which whilst it is some of the issue is cetainly not all of it. My tuppence worth is that some level of alignment with ground features would make airspace boundaries many many times more obvious.... But surely if it were than simple it would have already been done????

[mikehallam]

Apropos Gasax' last para sentence #2 :

Near Gatwick there is some precedence done by NATS, for ground feature alignment appropriate for low VFR flying below ~750 ft agl, who have already done that for my base close to the CTR.

For general Zones a whole plethora of individual wiggly shapes would, IMHO, make Navigation by straight line VOR, - or GPS - ,or pencil line on Chart, more tricky. There is some benefit in familiar shapes especially say MATZ comprised of straight lines and curves: except perhaps for identifying specifics as in my case. Or e.g. The corridor west of Manchester & similar.

Personally I don't find VRP's either at all easy to find first or second time, which after all is when it matters most. It distracts one from flying the plane scanning the deck for some unknown but presumably obvious ground feature, whilst fearing the wrath of some ATC bloke. Not very much used by light a/c I know because mostly we're familiar with the local terrain but once away over fresh ground I have to admit the jolly not so old and used to make you go blind (if you believed the CAA) GPS is the best aid by far.

mike hallam (Sussex, England).

[Rob Swain]

I agree with most of what has been said, especially about VRPs. There are some that are really obvious (Reebok Stadium north on Manchester springs to mind, esp when the lights are on for a match, and the M1/M6 motorway junction) but for a lot I rely on my GPS telling me where they are - not really in keeping with the "Visual" aspect.

Anyway - to my main point...

I like to use Listening Squawks, and I got called up when I infringed Birmingham airspace when using one. I phoned them when I got down and had a chat with a nice ATC lady. She was more interested in why I had infringed than in giving me a b******ing and asked me to fill in an online questionnaire about it, which I did.
So 'they' are collecting and collating information where they can.

The reason for the infringement? I was a bit rushed to get to my landing slot for the Aero Expo at Sywell last year and misread the (paper) chart, cutting a (small) corner at 1700ft which I thought had a base of 2000ft when it had reduced to 1500ft there.
When I told her this she was very understanding and explained that the airspace around Brum had been simplified in recent years to make it more logical and understandable on the chart with a view to reducing the number of infringements, but it had not been as successful as they had hoped. Probably this is one reason why they are now asking infringers "what went wrong?".

Moral of the tale, if any? Use listening squawks, and don't be afraid to put your paw up if you do cock it up!
Want to know what and where they are?
http://airspacesafety.com/media/474/cov ... k_2012.pdf
If you already have a copy of this in your kneeboard, great, but new ones were introduced last year, so make sure it is up to date.

For those without a squawk box (Transponder) then talk to the ATC for the area you are in. They'll probably stop you infringing in the first place!