Any 'new' ideas for reducing Airspace Infringements?

[John Brady]

Irv,

I think that the level of basic skills needed to fly in complex airspace is variable amongst pilots and there is no point in asking people to utilise skills they don't currently have. I have been looking at the skills needed when going for a general fly about where airspace is an issue as they are different from those needed for en-route navigation, gps or not. Orientation and understanding of a number of factors are important but having a useful map is fundamental. The CAA 1/2 mil is not really suitable but although a marked up 1/4 mil is much better hardly anyone has one (based on chart sales). I have asked NATS for support and copyright approval (they have taken over charts from the CAA) so that LAA members may copy (or have copied for them) an A3 sized fragmant of the 1/4 mil chart that they can mark up and use specifically for orientation when local flying. I have the support of the CAA DAP but I unfortunately NATS not responded to my request. Hopefully they will respond and we may be able to run a trial.

John

[FlyOnTrack]

I am reading, and thanks for inputs, just haven't had time to reply to anything specific today but it's the ideas that matter, not me answering anything specific.
As you know there has a been a lot of 'education' over the past couple of years, whether it's the radar replays on FlyOnTrack or 'use Mode C if you have it' campaigns, and I think we have gone up a level in that time but we have to look at how we now go up another - we have definitely 'got to' a certain number of pilots, but the same messages wil probably only get to the same pilots and we need further penetration.
It's no good hectoring the pilots who are already taking notice, so I thought it was time to just ask for inputs and ideas - I suspect 'more useful ground time in the BFRs' will reach pilots that we haven't 'got to' before, and as for new ideas, even something which seems improbable might then trigger a different idea which is easy to do and worthwhile. Keep them coming if you have any, I'll try and dig out my bienniel list
One big problem with these infringements is that it's a bit like a cup competition - we can't 'lose a match' or we're out. If the 'worst case' happened. our flying lives in GA would change overnight.... and we're lucky it hasn't happened in this country already.

[FlyOnTrack]

I'll try and dig out my bienniel list

Here http://www.higherplane.flyer.co.uk/bfr-ground.pdf is my current menu of 'hot topics' that I now show to anyone coming for a 2-yearly instructor flight. Some items will not be relevant to that pilot, some will already be known, but it's a trigger mechanism for individual pilots to say that they want to know more about items on it.

The list is also up on the pilot's noticeboard at my airfield so pilots do not actually have to wait two years to find out about something, it can trigger them to come for a briefing at any time, but they will definitely get the opportunity every two years.

For example at an strut talk I was giving I met a pilot whose 'strip' is under an ILS at a major airfield where a 'listening squawk' is being trialed. He hadn't heard of the concept before but thought it a great idea. My concern was that these sort of things are not being discussed as part of the 2 yearly session with an instructor, which was seen as just a flight when it could be so much more. Not everyone follows forums or has time to read magazines

[CH]

Gents,

I feel that some of this problem could be alleviated if the focus of the BFR moved away from circuits in every conceivable configuration. The old PFA tick sheet for BFR's tended to focus us toward that - when in fact there should not really be any laid down syllabus. Certainly when conducting BFR's I'm much keener to concentrate on the areas where I feel the candidate to be lacking. There's no point doing short feild work when the candidate has sucessfully flown out of a 300m strip for donkeys years. However this guy may well benefit from a trip from W Waltham through the Booker gap and along to Elstree for example (pity we cannot land away in BFR's - unless one leg is over an hour - you need to shut down for fees so rollers away are impractical). It's not GPS nor mode S that stops infringements, its competent planning followed by similar flying/nav.

Thus I would go as far as saying that BFR's should legally alternate from basic flying skills one year to nav 2 years on. That way everyone gets a brush up on each aspect every four years. Not much but better than nothing.

Charlie

[Brian Hope]

CH, that's a pretty bold statement that GPS will not stop infringements. Let us take the possible scenario that Nigel Hitchman touched on - most infringements seem to be from Club type aircraft - PA28/C150/172 etc. The reality is that the vast majority of LAA types are flying with GPS, but most club aircraft probably are not. So, we have a situation where the club pilot is probably flying less than the LAAer, and in an aircraft less well equipped as far as modern, easy to use nav aids are concerned. Now I do not know if the facts bear out the above synopsis, but it might be a worthwhile exercise to look at the infringements over the last five years and see if club aircraft are the major culprits. If they are, then perhaps the flying clubs could be persuaded to fit their aircraft with GPS and train their customers how to use them. Dismissing the possibility out of hand and reverting back to the age old 'proper planning and flying is the answer' won't get us anywhere. We all know proper planning and accurate flying is what everybody should be doing, but having a GPS to back up your planning and help out when it all goes tits up is likely to be more effective.

[merlin]

Quite agree Brian, Even the RAF operated Grobs have GPS . I assume this is so they can rapidly spot potential infringements.

[CH]

Hi Brian,

I see why you made your comment above, sorry I wasn't clear - but I am ceratinly not advocating going back to the whizz wheel days of planning based on a wind that probably wasn't correct anyway. What I said was;

"it's competent planning followed by similar flying/nav."

Nowadays this must include programming the GPS, pre-programming required frequencies etc and getting a plog or similar plan sorted ahead of time when on the ground and not capacity limited. Just having these items in the cockpit will not stop infringements. Indeed I know that just following the 'direct to' function has caused infringemets and will continue to do so unless people plan. Just getting aloft without a plan, and following the GPS picture will not help the situation. It is also not simply just where you are over the ground that is important, as many infringements are 'vertical' insamuch as there is class G airspace below, but people are too high as they haven't taken the time to route study ahead of the event.

I fully agree with Nigels points and feel it may well have bearing on this issue. But your point about;

"fit their aircraft with GPS AND TRAIN THEIR CUSTOMERS HOW TO USE THEM"

is my point entirely. Just having the kit and not planning/knowing much about it is what I'm on about. I'm certainly not dismissing technology out of hand. The issue of getting GPS (and other technolocy) in rental cockpits is that even if it is there people will tend not to have chance to plan/familiarise on it where the private owner will know his inside out as he can take it home and play. There is no way any tool can be fully effective unless you have had training - just like EFIS.

Finally though I still feel having an alternating BFR would help. I daily examine/instruct from the still wet behind the ears PPL for the LAA, and professionally ETPS staff and ATPL's with total hours like phone numbers, but still I always slant their training toward their individual needs - and we've obviously identified a need here. The BFR is a good idea that has probably raised overall PPL standards. Thus I feel having a nav brush-up (with all the GPS's, bells and whistles -if the candidate has access to them and can use them effectively) every so often would also help.

Charlie Huke

[Dave Hall]

I am ceratinly not advocating going back to the whizz wheel days of planning based on a wind that probably wasn't correct anyway.

Having done my PPL within the past 4 years, I have been impressed with the accuracy of the met office predicted winds, both in terms of required heading and timings. Flight planning software such as on UKGA.com saves the tedious work with whizz wheel.

I suspect more navigation problems arise in club aircraft through DI precession and poor heading maintenance than from incorrect met data.

[FlyOnTrack]

Just for info, the same thread is on the following forums in case you want to see/compare what different groups think (no significance to the order other than the order my browser tabs were in today):

flyer: http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55671
bmaa: http://www.bmaa.org/forums/default.aspx?f=15&m=53417
pilot: http://www.pilotweb.aero/cs/forums/1712 ... wPost.aspx
laa: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... php?t=1371
today's pilot: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=91479

[Richard Warriner]

Interesting to see the amount and direction of responses on different forums.

I suspect the idea of bringing up the latest safety and infringement issues at BFR is very good. There has always been the problem of reaching pilots (the majority?) who don’t do CAA Safety Evenings, GASCo/AAIB visits or NATS Tower / Swanwick events.

One thing that seems to be a common thread is communications in general and radio in particular. We tell the newbies that the radio is the most difficult part of flying, sadly they believe us. According to Rod Machado (American flying instructor and entertainer) the highest pulse rates recorded during flying are when talking to ATC. We need to make people less worried about this aspect of flying. That way they might at least use the Listening Squawks, if not the services of Farnborough LARS etc. While we don’t want to see it degenerate in to an airborne citizen’s band, we do need to get people away from blind terror about talking to the person on the other end of the radio.

I’d suggest that all students and pilots who are uncomfortable on the radio get themselves at least a scanner or preferably a hand held transceiver. There are some legal considerations, but I feel the safety case wins (just keep it away from children or drunken mates who might want to try and talk to the aeroplanes…)

Listening to the experts shows that even they get it wrong from time to time. The difference is that they are not worried about asking for clarification or repeats, will question an instruction they don’t understand and will ask for assistance when they feel it’s required.

Listening to Farnborough LARS, they seem to spend their waking hours keeping people out of controlled airspace. They are very good at it, perhaps because they get a lot of practice.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.

[cbarnes]

The only way to reduce infringements is to improve one's standard of navigation. Draw a line on a map, make sure it doesn't cross any forbidden boundaries and then go and fly it. Use a quarter mill, not a half-mill which is not detailed enough. The continentals favour 1:200,000 which is even better. Use features that don't appear on the half-mill. Small woods. Minor roads and villages. Power lines. Contours.

When I learned to fly many moons ago I was taught to use a whizz-wheel and fly the heading calculated. This was exasperating when I could see features on the track line I had drawn disappearing to one side or another but my instructor refused to let me get back on track! Just fly the heading and make a correction later, using the 1 in 60 rule, I was told. I don't do this any more, I simply follow the line.

I have also been entering precision flying competitions for many years. Not only does it improve one's track keeping abilities, it adds the extra pressure of a time schedule and observational tasks such as searching for photographic features. Also, the spot landing section will improve one's landing accuracy no end. Fly glide approaches to touchdown on a line. Have a look at http://rallyflyingclub.org.

Regards,
Chris Barnes

[Dave Hall]

That idea of calculate and fly a heading seems to be the way instructors teach it, but they should also teach you to correct for known course deviations - ie from time to time you work out exactly where you are and how long you've been off course for, etc, and correct appropriately.

I can see that 'track-crawling' is not good, as you're spending too much time looking at the ground.

At around 100kts, the 1/4 mil sheets are a bit too large a scale for a decent journey, but in a slower aircraft or for shorter journeys they might be a help. You can certainly follow the features on them - handy if you're navigating rather than flying.

[Pete]

I think the fundamental problem is that there are a lot of folks who go flying who really do not have a mental picture of the country below.

Some folks as children spent a lot of times looking at maps and getting a good UK map in their heads, they don't need to look at a map to know the relative position of towns and other points of interest. In much the same way that we can all find the light switch in a darkened room, folks with a good mental picture have good situational awareness when out flying.

If a person has a good mental map of the UK in their head, then understanding that the London TMA sorta fits inside the M25 with a lump sticking out to the west is quite easy. I think the reason for so many zone busts around Stanstead is the lack of a real feature that allows folks to lock the mental map in position, it's ok on the south side, folks remember that it's just north of the M25, but the other boundaries are very difficult to visualise. So as for example if you intend to go flying in the Essex area it's important to sit down and work out what land features mark the boundaries of the Stanstead TMA, and figure out your own strategy to keep clear of the zone. You really don't want to have to start trying to figure out landmarks whilst you are in the air.

In situations where we get lost, it's generally because we don't know where we were before we got lost, again this comes down to not having that mental picture, if you are flying along, and cross a motorway, if you have that mental picture, then you know which motorway it was, and can probably figure out your position within a couple of miles. If you know where you were a few minutes ago, you pretty well know where you are now.

So I would say that the biggest secret to avoiding bumbling into forbidden territory is to spent a few boring evenings studying at a few maps, dry flying a few routes, and mentally noting the forests and high ground along the routes, looking for features close to your track perhaps modifying your route to give you easier to follow tracks.