Would you be willing to let the LAA see where you fly?

[John Brady]

The LAA is cooperating with the CAA (airspace policy) and other GA organisations in a study of Class G airspace to try to define where aircraft fly and when. We want to know where the choke points are, if they really exist, and what impact changes in CAS actually have. Armed with this we should be in a better position to argue for airspace access and to put up some real facts when airspace changes are proposed.

You may recall filling in a survey which has shown that modelling should be able to tell us what we need. A particular help came from the BGA because all glider pilots who want to enter the cross country ladder have to submit track logger files. These files, suitably disidentified, have shown where gliders fly most often and where their need for airspace is greatest. If that data was available from light aircraft we would be able to produce a comprehensive picture of the way we use class G airspace. If something like that was set up, would you be willing to participate?

Please could you tell us through the poll on this post if you would be willing in principle to upload track files from your GPS (if you have one) or from a data logger if we loaned you one, provided the data went only to the LAA and Qinetiq (who would process the data) to be disidentified and amalgamated with all the other data before being used in a study report? We would guarantee to destroy the source data and not to pass it on. It would be for a fixed period and need not be limited to one pilot or one aircraft as we don't care who it is just where aircraft fly in general.

Please tell us what you think of this so we know if it is worth developing.

John Brady

[Chris B]

John,

Having been to Swanwick recently, the majority of choke points (or should we say the busier areas of Class G at least) are covered by radar and LARS. We were given a fantastic demo of how NATS/D&D can select whatever returns they want to see (primary and secondary) just about anywhere in the country. The vast majority of GA a/c we observed in busier class G were using the listening squawks or receiving a Basic service. Comprehensive track data appears to be available already but perhaps in need of collection, collation and analysis.

In view of this, how will GPS/Logger track data from a small percentage of the total GA and/or LAA flights anywhere in Class G make a compelling argument one way or the other - particularly as weather is a significant factor. GPS/logger track data may have to be collected over many years to see the impact of airspace changes and to verify the model assumptions.

Who is the customer for the collected data? You have implied that the LAA will collect its own data for analysis by Qinetiq, which sounds expensive, particularly if we have to purchase the data loggers as well. Fine if the CAA is picking up the tab.

Any further info you can provide to explain the proposition would be welcome.

I’ve just learnt how to download tracks from my 496 using MapSource and it’s quite impressive. Is that all I would need to do?

All the best,

Chris

[gasax]

Perhaps we do need a little more detail on what is being proposed. I would have thought that all of the ATC units with digital radar could ouptut the sort of information you are looking for. Is it as simple as NATS asking / telling them?

Still if you want my data you're welcome to it. I discovered last year that my 296 was logging everything and holds a rolling memory of about 30,000 track miles. Using MapSource you can get it out and and then replay it in for instance Google Earth. I was a bit disappointed with my 'straight' tracks though!

[Ian Melville]

Still if you want my data you're welcome to it. I discovered last year that my 296 was logging everything and holds a rolling memory of about 30,000 track miles. Using MapSource you can get it out and and then replay it in for instance Google Earth. I was a bit disappointed with my 'straight' tracks though!

I updated my 296 last week and backed up all my tracks. I spotted one that went from home base to the Gower and landed at Swansea, returning a few hours later. Odd coz I've never flown to Swansea

[Gaznav]

I also can't understand why NATS cannot use their RADAR data - unless they want to charge the CAA (that would make me chuckle!). I used to sit on the UK Airprox Board as a Military Member and we would use RADAR data some time after the event to piece together what had happened - the primary radar returns are very accurate. Furthermore, our Military RADARs are obliged to keep data as well.

"Baffled of NATO"!

[John Brady]

Qinetiq know all about the NATS and military radar capability and have told us it is not suitable for the job. This may be because the airspace model is 3D and the raw radar data is 2D. I will ask at the next opportunity.

John

[Gaznav]

John

Someone in QQ is telling porkies as Mode C will give a height read-out for transponder equipped GA and military RADARs (and some civvy) have non-cooperative height finding capabilities - normally +/- 3,000ft or so depending on the range.

Anyway, there's only NOTAMed non-transponding traffic above FL100. So everything that is a primary-only RADAR contact outside of any NOTAM (such as a cross-country glider competition) is less than FL100 and most likely to be GA (or a failed transponder or a UFO (only kidding on the last one!)).

That's the trouble with these QinetiQ (QQ) types - brains too big to think laterally!

Drop me a line if you want any further help on this as I have a bit of background in this area - John Broad knows how to get hold of me.

All the best

[John Brady]

Thanks Gary,

the model is working in 100ft slices so your idea of a 6000ft margin of error does not cut it. And transponders are irrelevant as most airspace users don't have one. Like the thousands of hang and paragliders - flying up to Welshpool on a summer day this year (remember those) every cumulus had its own bunch of blokes sitting under parachutes.

If you want to help with this (and I would be very grateful for help) I can put you in touch with the ATC specialist at QQ. Email me at [email protected]

John