Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andy_Fell
    replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Mikehallam,

    .. then join the debate on the stansted TMZ consultation

    http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=40947

    ... think we dried up a bit on that one... but you could fire it up again Mike :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Irv,

    I notice on your radar replay page (clip 7) the following:

    The 4 aircraft broken off approach were all delayed by 8 minutes but also 10 aircraft that were already in the holding stacks were also delayed 8 minutes. This gives a total delay for all aircraft of 2 hours and if you consider the average size of the delayed aircraft involved was a Boeing 737 (which burns around 2.5 tonnes of fuel an hour while holding) itís a costly business.

    That infringer's carbon footprint must be through the roof! :shocked:

    Leave a comment:


  • mikehallam
    replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    How's this wonderful new informing C or verbal, by wireless system proposed to become more widely used when we'll soon get all radio freqencies charged heavily by ofcom grandees ?

    I'm not keen on spending £1000 plus plus for b**lloc* roasting gear.
    The best I can offer whilst still free to talk is a radio call which is common courtesy, to ATC when flying close to the fringes of their own dotted line on the chart, to set their minds at rest as to height and location.

    Mikehallam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Oh now I see. It's still a good safety measure and should be used when ever possible. ;-)
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    John Otter wrote:
    Oh now I see. But it's still a good safety measure and should be used when ever possible?
    John
    remove the 'but' and the '?' and you're there!

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Oh now I see. But it's still a good safety measure and should be used when ever possible?
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    John - contrast the stansted one we have mentioned to the Luton bust - number 5 in the list from memory. Student (not squawking) enters the Luton CTR - as a CTR goes down to ground level and there is only controlled airspace vertically upwards, the controller INSTANTLY knows there is a problem as soon as the aircraft crosses the boundary, so alerts the commercial squawking 1435 on final approach to turn away whilst it is sort out, so the 1435 commecial is never in danger, just plenty of people on that flight and probably every flight that aircraft has to make for the rest of the day just very annoyed at delays. With the Stansted CTA one, the controller never suspects the guy is in the airspace. Now you know why they want a mode C TMZ.

    By the way, I personally don't think it is true that NATS is particularly interested in Mode S throughout the UK for everyone in any airspace. NATS would no doubt be pleased to get the Mode C within it under the CTAs and airways if someone else imposed it. I think NATS really just want either pilots to stay out of the controlled airspace if not cleared in, or Mode C where NATS have real problems with infringers. Remember NATS never claim Mode C will STOP all infringements, it merely allows them to keep their traffic away from the infringer as seen in a couple of replays where they knew an infringement was actually happening.

    It's also the case that if anyone had Mode C and was following the listening squawk idea, or taking a service from another unit with an allocated squawk, then of course the infringement might be stopped before it happened or very early on before it got to even redirecting other traffic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    John Otter wrote:
    Are you saying Irv, that an unidentified aircraft flying across an approach path will be deemed to be flying at the height he is supposed to be at?
    John
    Yes - or in any volume of airspace where the '2d' position COULD be legal, an aircraft has to be deemed to be legal and outside controlled airspacde UNLESS it's known otherwise through mode c or a radio report.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy_Fell
    replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    If you squawk mode C then it tells ATC what altitude you are at... so they will then know for sure if you are infringing a stub (for example). Check out the first link in my above post. the guy who is squawking mode A has to be assumed by ATC that he is below 1,500ft (i.e. not infringing)... but it transpired that he was at 3,000ft (i.e. f*&king close to that Ryanair on final approach to RWY23)... If he was squawking mode C then ATC would have known he was at 3,000ft and would have made the jet stay out of his way to avoid a potential collision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Can someone explain the benefits of using mode C then please?
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Are you saying Irv, that an unidentified aircraft flying across an approach path will be deemed to be flying at the height he is supposed to be at?
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy_Fell
    replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Jiggles wrote: I know that if you fly above or beneath then you are safe and legal, the trouble is that ATC don't know if you are above, below or smack bang in the middle and therefore have to treat the flight as an infringement
    NO! they will treat it as if you are NOT infringing... that is the point... otherwise they would never be able to let anybody below a stub who is not squawking mode C.

    John what you describe there is exactly the justification for Transponder Mandatory Zones.

    (looks like Irv beat me to it this time!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    John Otter wrote:
    and therefore have to treat the flight as an infringement.
    quite the opposite - they currently must treat it aas OUTSIDE and not an infringer - as the pilot is trained, the pilot should be competent, therefore the pilot is assumed to be where he/she should be How would any commercial traffic move anywhere other than in a CTR otherwise? - unless of course, everyone in the problem area (volume would be more accurate) had a Mode C transponder so the controller could see one way or the other....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    Andy, I know that if you fly above or beneath then you are safe and legal, the trouble is that ATC don't know if you are above, below or smack bang in the middle and therefore have to treat the flight as an infringement. It's not about getting away with it, it's about others knowing that you and the other aircraft are safely seperated. I'm using "you" as the royal "you" not you personally by the way.
    No one would expect radar to just assume that a small light aircraft was definitely flying at the correct height, and if I inadvertantly strayed vertically into a controlled zone I would be only too happy for ATC to tell me so.
    John

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Airspace Infringements - Radar Replays

    John Otter wrote:
    Surely they'll be noticed even if they haven't got a transponder at all, but with "C", radar knows if they are above, below or infringing?
    John
    that's the great danger - we're talking about CTAs - so GA is allowed to be underneath, so if no altitude is on the radar screen, the aircraft could actually be in the CTA and the controller still HAS to assume they are underneath (or no traffic would ever get anywhere in a CTA or airway). Now, if there was a 'worst case' incident in a CTA or TMA with a non Mode C infringer, GA in this country would not know what had hit it afterwards. In fact, there was such an incident in the USA which led to mode C veils, 30 mile radius Mode C mandatory zones around their major airfields.
    There is a worrying radar replay on flyontrack - look at number 3, "Stansted CTA No Mode C"

    ps: Andy got in first, I didn't notice!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X