ON TRACK Report – the Response
|
Section: |
||||
|
Serial |
Problem Statement
|
Recommendations |
CAA Comment
|
|
|
1 |
The views of
individual GA pilots are not always represented by the GA groups which
participate in the airspace consultative processes. |
a. Pilots should be encouraged to join
representative groups to enable their collective voice to be heard. b. Tangible results achieved by GA groups
through consultation should be widely publicised to promote their
credibility. c. GA groups should be encouraged to use web
forums to gain maximum pilot input and increase membership. |
The
GA community is consulted (through its representative groups and bodies) at
both the informal and formal stages of the Airspace Change Process. In addition, GA representative bodies sit
on the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC), and the
General Aviation Working Group (GAWG) and are party to airspace policy
discussion. Furthermore, the CAA’s
Safety Regulation Group (SRG) holds frequent GA safety seminars
with GA groups, at which active participation by GA organisations is
recommended. Airspace issues are
frequently discussed, especially when DAP staff participate in safety
seminars. Pilot/controller
forums held at some sites, and MOD host civil air safety days. Communication with the GA community is also
effected through GASIL and
by means of LASORS. The ‘On Track’ web forum serves as a
conduit for comment from the GA community to the CAA. The
CAA therefore consults widely with the GA community but cannot guarantee that
the representative groups with which it deals effectively disseminate the
outcome of consultation to their members.
The onus must, therefore, lie with representative groups themselves to
ensure they represent the views of, and relay information to, their
membership and is a matter only they can resolve. Some
GA groups already use web forums as a means of communicating with their
members, an innovation which is supported by GAD. BPA has an interactive coaching page, PFA, BMAA and BHPA have
bulletin boards and chat areas. |
|
|
2 |
CAS allocation restricts the area of free airspace between
zones available for GA operations, creating traffic choke points and
increasing infringement risk. |
a. Allocation of all CAS should be re-examined
with the specific aim of identifying those areas which could prudently be
released to provide more airspace for GA aircraft to operate in safety and to
reduce choke points. b. Radar replays should be made available to
identify low utilisation of CAS. c. GA pilots should be consulted to identify
individual areas which are unnecessarily restricted by CAS and which could be
eased by trimming boundaries. |
In addition to carefully scrutinising requests for new
Controlled Airspace (CAS), part of DAP’s remit is to review existing CAS to
ensure its establishment remains justifiable, changes in 2003 to the Daventry
CTA and the Liverpool CTR/CTA being examples of this process. Every effort is made to ensure airspace
structures accommodate as far as possible the requirements of all airspace users,
and that where established, CAS represents the minimum practicable amount
required. GA representative bodies are consulted as part of this
process, and their input can influence the outcome of any CAS reviews. It should be noted that CAS is designed to
provide procedure containment, and arbitrary ‘shavings off’ may result in
that requirement not being met satisfactorily (ie without any mitigation for
such changes). In addition, the
resulting airspace structures could actually engender infringements by their
very complexity. Radar replays are
made available by the various ATS providers for accident and incident
investigation purposes. They may also
be used to investigate claims into the utilisation of specific airspaces in
specific circumstances. |
|
|
3 |
Airspace boundaries are not always visually identifiable
to VFR traffic due to lack of associated ground features. |
Airspace boundaries and low-level corridors should be
aligned with prominent ground features wherever possible, with an allowance
for any line feature to be offset to the left in accordance with rules of the
air. |
See
comments at Serial 2 above. A balance
between CAS design requirements, environmental demands and any need to align
CAS boundaries along prominent ground features must be achieved. Although not commonplace, reference to
geographical features by airspace boundaries is made wherever possible. The
relative lack of infringements in the northern half of the |
|
|
4 |
Low base levels of under utilised CAS restricts GA
operations, especially over high ground and on longer over-water transits. |
CAA should consult with GA operators to identify all the
“Base level problem areas”, and take action to raise CAS levels where
possible to permit safer GA operations underneath. |
See
comments at Serials 1 and 2 above.
Changes to CAS base levels in the |
|
|
5 |
VFR corridors and their procedures are not well understood,
in particular the Note 8 example near Stapleford. |
a. Corridors should be more clearly shown on
the chart and procedures detailed on the map border or a separate card in
easily readable font size. b. Low-level corridors should be marked by
unidirectional ground lights or markers where practical. |
The
establishment of VFR corridors in the Corridors
are clearly marked on VFR charts, which have to strike a balance between
pertinent information and clutter. CAA
chart products are generally well received by the GA community. Marking
low-level corridors with unidirectional ground lights or markers is
considered impracticable and will not be pursued. The Visual Reference Point (VRP) policy AIC
has recently been reissued as AIC 18/2004 (Yellow 129) dated 1
April 2004.
Pilots are encouraged to notify the appropriate ATC units when VRPs
are not readily identifiable from the air or are obscured. More details on VFR flight procedures in and
around selected major airports can be found in the 'On Track Maps'
section of the CAA website. |
|
|
6 |
Pilots often have difficulty understanding why a zone crossing has
been refused and have no formal method of registering the refusal. |
a.
Controllers should give a clear reason for
refusal of service at the time of the request, or by arranged post flight
telephone contact. b. A formal procedure should be introduced to
enable pilots to record refusals of ATC service to highlight and quantify the
problem. Feedback to the pilot could also promote better understanding of
service limitations. |
There is no formal requirement for controllers to explain
why a zone crossing clearance has been refused. Any such requirement would have significant
R/T workload implications. It is
considered preferable for refusals to be pursued after the event. Controlling authorities of new controlled
airspace structures are now required to record refusals; pilots may in turn
submit refusal reports in accordance with the procedure devised by Peter
Skinner (AOPA/GASCo) or submit an occurrence report (CA1261). Also matter of education. The need for a new Safety Sense Leaflet on
Class D airspace and how to use air traffic services is under consideration. |
|
|
7 |
Use of RPS produces vertical infringements. |
Withdraw the use of RPS in favour of Local QNH. |
No change to RPS policy is envisaged, however the rationalisation of
Altimeter Setting Regions may be considered in the future. |
|
|
8 |
The low base level of Airway N866 is too restrictive and
has led to infringements on the GA Channel Islands route. |
a. Review the current commercial utilisation
of N866, raise the base level and provide LARS coverage to the b. Install a VOR/DME at |
The
optimum route from a safety perspective remains the recommended VFR route
from the Solent CTA, published at AIP AD2-EGJJ-3-1F
(18 Mar 04). Any
provision of a VOR/DME at |
|
Section: |
7.2 LARS |
|||
|
Serial |
Problem Statement |
Recommendations
|
CAA Comment |
|
|
9 |
There is Insufficient LARS coverage for GA requirements. |
a.
Increase the number of LARS ATC units,
especially in known hotspots and choke points, with adequate weekend
coverage. b. Provide a
specific LARS in Stansted/Luton/Stapleford area. c.
Improve
LARS coverage in areas where cover is limited ( d. Rationalise
LARS more efficiently to prevent overlapping. e. Re-instate
Gatwick LARS trial, interrupted in the late 1990s. f. Upgrade
London Information to provide a g. Introduce
a US-style Flight Following or Listening Out/Monitoring service, with
allocated R/T frequencies and transponder codes to readily identify and
provide access to aircraft operating nearby. h. Allocate
transponder codes for use in VFR transit areas and when operating close to
CAS. |
The report on the DfT-led
review of funding for LARS was
published in May 2002. The
objectives of the review were to examine the strengths and weaknesses of
current funding arrangements and identify and evaluate options for future
funding. In addition, the CAA will
shortly launch consultation on a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) further
discussing LARS funding options. LARS participation is not
mandatory, although ATC units were encouraged to participate. The RIA seeks to identify LARS funding
options, and/or of increasing funding to make the scheme more attractive to
potential participants. Many non-LARS
units provide ATC outside controlled airspace. NATS
licensing, equipment, and radar data provision, personnel, costs and funding
issues currently render any upgrading of London Information to provide a The There
is but a finite resource of SSR codes available, and careful management of
the Information
concerning LARS, ATSOCAS and SSR code use is to be found in the UK
Aeronautical Information Publication at ENR 1.6 and in AIC 2/2001 (Yellow
33). In addition, AIC 48/2004 (Pink
65), published on 24 June 2004, describes the provision of FIS in the Safety Sense Leaflet 8
(also contained within
Licensing Administration and Standardisation & Operating Requirements and
Standards (LASORS) document) provides general
information concerning air traffic service provision and frequent reminders
also feature in the CAA’s General Aviation Safety Information
Leaflet (GASIL). |
|
|
10 |
LARS and zone crossing procedures are not fully understood
by many GA pilots. |
a. Introduce pilots to LARS at an early stage
in the PPL training syllabus. (See Section 7.9) b. Encourage pilots to visit their local LARS
provider. c. Produce a training video and booklet
illustrating the correct LARS procedures and how to benefit from the system. |
It
is recognised that LARS and zone crossing procedures are education issues to
be addressed. Pilots are more likely
to get the service they want if they better understand how to use LARS and
apply the correct phraseology when requesting a service. Pilots
should be aware that ATC may be busy when they call them, and that the instruction
‘Standby’ means just that. It is not
an ATC clearance, neither is it a precursor to a clearance. Normally, requests for clearances will be
dealt with in the order in which they are received and issued according to
the traffic situation. Also, planned routes through
controlled airspace may appear simple on a chart but traffic patterns (and
the density of traffic within that airspace) may make a planned route
unrealistic in practice. Therefore
pilots should be prepared for a crossing clearance that does not exactly
match a planned route but will permit safe transit of the airspace concerned. Safety Sense Leaflet 8
– ATSOCAS provides some information on LARS, and is also contained within the
CAA's LASORS document. Safety Sense Leaflets
are available under the ‘Safety’ and ‘General Aviation’ headings on the CAA
website, www.caa.co.uk. LASORS can be found on the same site
under the ‘Publications’ and ‘General Aviation’ headings. A
two-way awareness flow is considered necessary to foster awareness and
appreciation of LARS-related issues, from both the airspace user and service
provider perspectives. Pilots
attending CAA-sponsored Safety Evenings will be encouraged to visit their
local LARS provider. Similarly, ATC
units will be encouraged to initiate visits.
An example of such activity is described in an article (‘View From
the Top’) published in the August 2004 edition of the AOPA magazine ‘General
Aviation’. Top Tips
on how to avoid an airspace infringement have recently been published on the CAA website, and a new SSL on Class D
airspace and how to use air traffic services is being developed. |
|
|
11 |
GA pilots
often feel excluded from the ATC system. |
a. Controllers should be alerted to the
damaging effect of disparaging remarks made to GA pilots on the R/T,
increasing risk of infringement. b. CAA and NATS should mount a joint education
programme by promoting seminars, safety evenings and the use of videos to
bring pilots and controllers into greater face to face contact. This works well at a commercial level and
would deliver improvements for GA and ATC. c. ATC units and local clubs should be
encouraged to implement mutually beneficial coordination procedures. d. Controllers should be invited to visit and
fly with local clubs as part of a formal GA orientation programme. e. Local LARS controllers should be invited to
participate in GAD Safety Evenings at user airfields where any perceived
issues of ATC shortcomings should be addressed. f. Publicity should be given to clarify the
funding, provision, availability and priority of LARS. g. NATS should be invited to openly define the
policy on LARS provision by ATC units not established to do so, when capacity
exists on the day. |
Better awareness amongst
certain elements of the aviation community of airspace and R/T procedures
would facilitate ATC service provision to them. Any perceived lack of knowledge amongst
pilots does not under any circumstances justify making 'disparaging remarks';
this is unacceptable, and controllers should guard against such use. A
two-way information and education flow is considered necessary to foster
awareness and appreciation of LARS-related issues, from both the airspace
user and service provider perspectives.
Pilots attending CAA-sponsored Safety Evenings will be encouraged to
visit their local LARS provider.
Similarly, ATC units should encourage visits to them. In addition, pilot/controller forums held
at some sites, and the MOD hosts civil air safety days. It should be recognised that it is not just
a matter for CAA to resolve, as service providers and flying clubs also have
important roles to play. The CAA
welcomes all initiatives - regardless of their origin or scope - which foster
awareness of flying and service provision-related matters and in turn
generate a greater understanding of regulations, procedures and the
environments both sides of the equation operate within. For example, NATS produce a video
describing the role of the London Terminal Control Centre (LTCC) and briefed
local aerodromes on the services provided by LTCC ATC units and local clubs
should be implement mutually beneficial coordination procedures. Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of
Understanding form the cornerstone of many operating procedures. As ATC units are expected to consult with
airspace users when devising certain procedures, so airspace users are
encouraged to approach units for advice on how to safely transit particular
airspaces. The AIP and the
commercially available Pooleys Flight Guide and Lockyears Farm Strip Guide
include airfield contact information. Serial 10
above outlines LARS funding and provision matters. It is important for airspace users to
remember that LARS is made up of participating NATS and non-NATS units, and
services provided within existing unit capacity in most cases. Units will prioritise tasks on the basis of
available resources and it is possible that dedicated LARS control
position/staff/capacity is unavailable due to higher priority unit
tasking/workload. |
|
Section: |
7.3 Maps and Charts |
|||
|
Serial |
Problem Statement |
Recommendation |
CAA Comment |
|
|
12 |
The present system of paper maps and charts does not make
full use of available technology. |
a. Introduce a
range of low cost interactive CD-ROM based maps and charts, where the pilot
may select individual areas for printing using a variety of scales,
information and CAS presentations. b. Develop the use
of slant photographs for VRP recognition. c. Produce a free
downloadable VFR guide based on the Australian model. This guide should include coverage of the
VFR corridors and infringement hotspots.
A ring bound paper version should be available for purchase. |
The CAA agrees with the concept of low-cost interactive
CD-ROM-based maps and charts. However,
current VFR chart production is based upon relatively ‘dumb’ data files;
‘smart’ files from which extracts can be downloaded from the web, or ones
that would enable a user to manipulate the data that is displayed before
downloading cannot be produced. That
said, a new production system is already under consideration. The CAA fulfils its State charting
requirements as laid out in ICAO Annex 4, but in order to do this in the
future will need to comply with extremely high standards of data accuracy and
integrity. This will entail the CAA
moving to a database-driven chart production system that will provide the
functionality to supply digital products to industry. Slant photographs are of particular use when employing
unidirectional routes past them, thus giving a true representation of what
you would see in flight. However UK
VRPs tend to be approachable from almost any direction, the exception being
selected entry/exit lanes. Therefore only the overhead shot is shown for
reference. Slant photographs
are already available for Manchester/Liverpool
and Nottingham
East Midlands corridors on the CAA website. These photographs were taken by NATS
controllers based at the respective airports, and were easy to produce as
both corridors are unidirectional routes.
There are commercial products available specifically designed for the
GA user. These include CAA VFR charts, OS charts and overhead photographs,
and can be run on a home PC and palmtop combined with a handheld GPS. The On Track charts and VRP photographs
have been the subject of a significant amount of positive feedback at both
the FLY Show and at the PFA Rally. The Sydney VFR guide was unique to the Sydney
Olympics. The CAA website carries a generic VFR
Guide which has proved popular amongst pilots (and may
be accessed via a link on the AIS website. AICs are readily available free of charge
on the AIS
website; for specific events such as the PFA Rally,
these may include colour overhead or slant photographs and chart
extracts. Production of site-specific
guides by the CAA would go well beyond the State’s ICAO Annex 4 and 15
obligations; the CAA is not convinced there is s market for such products,
and regrettably cannot justify the expenditure. |
|
|
13 |
Pilots experience problems with chart presentation and
clarity. |
a. Produce single b. Standard maps
unwieldy – consider downloadable A4. c. Include low
level route guidance notes in the map margin. d. Better selection
of corridor VRPs. e. Give wider
publicity to the application procedure for showing individual farm strips and
disused airfields on charts. f. Produce farm
strip GPS co-ordinates with Lat/Long on a chart card. g. Use more
distinct colours for road designators on 1:250000 chart. h. Show runway
layout on every active airfield. i.
Show ICAO airfield codes and frequencies on
1:500000 chart. j.
Include GPS coordinates wherever practical
to assist the use of VFR transit corridors and other suitable areas. k. Show Morse Code
ident adjacent to navaids. |
1:500000 Selected A4 chart extracts are
available on the 'On Track Maps'
section of the CAA website. Low-level route guidance notes would create further map
clutter. Guidance for Manchester/Liverpool
and Nottingham
East Midlands corridors is available on the 'On Track Maps'
section of the CAA website. Stansted
guidance information is published in 47/2002 (Pink 31) dated 30 May
2002 and is available on both the CAA and AIS websites
(www.caa.co.uk
and www.ais.org.uk). VRPs are selected and established by CAS controlling
authorities or (in the case of aerodromes outside CAS) other aerodromes. VRP policy is contained in AIC 18/2004 (Yellow 129) dated 1
April 2004 (available on the AIS website).
This invites pilots to report
any difficulty in identifying a VRP, or where changing physical surroundings
render the use of a feature as a VRP inappropriate (for example, as result
of landscape and/or land use change, demolition, or urban development), to
the controlling authority of airspace concerned. Applications for the inclusion of farm strips and disused
airfields on charts should utilise the feedback
form available on the CAA website. This issue was the subject of an article
published in one of the leading aviation journals in 2003. There is no State requirement to publish farm strip data,
and there would be an additional cost burden that would be borne by users to
cover its production. Pilots are
instead encouraged to refer to commercially available guides. Road designator colours are an Ordnance Survey
standard. The CAA does not have the
ability to modify the colours, neither would it wish to change them. OS would make additional charges for such a
modification, which would in turn increase the cost of the charts. The CAA does not agree that this is an
issue, and despite extensive consultation with users, has no other evidence
of user dissatisfaction with the existing chart colours. Runway layouts for those aerodromes with a known
boundary are shown on all 1:250000 charts.
Trial in progress for 1:500000 charts, but these have received a mixed
response to date. ICAO airfield codes and frequencies are now shown
on all 1:250000 charts and Southern/Northern England 1:500000 charts. The data will be included on all Scottish
1:500000 charts during the 2004 amendment cycle. GPS co-ordinates
and Morse code idents would create clutter on the chart. There is potential for Morse codes to
disappear amongst the other graphical aeronautical data depicted on the
chart. GPS coordinates are included in
the 'On Track Maps' on the CAA website. Pilots are reminded that,
while VRPs may define a VFR route, they should not be directly overflown;
rather, aircraft should be flown with reference to a VRP. The feasibility of incorporating VRP data into
commercially-available GPS databases is being investigated by the CAA. There is a risk that, after importing such
data into a GPS unit, pilots may use the co-ordinate data as is, and directly
overfly VRPs, rather than flying in reference to them. File importation from online sources will
be considered. VRP data is currently available on the 'Navbox'
program. The UKGA.com website contains
an online flight planning programme containing co-ordinates for VRPs and
other positions. These are provided by
members and are not necessarily approved as referenced points, neither can
their accuracy be guaranteed. Registration
to both sites is necessary, and can incur charges. |
|
Section: |
7.4 Aeronautical
Information Circulars (AICs) |
|||
|
Serial |
Problem Statement |
Recommendation |
CAA Comment |
|
|
14 |
The complexity of AIC presentation means that there is a
high chance of misunderstanding by inexperienced pilots. |
a. Emphasis should be placed on common English
presentation, avoiding abbreviations where plain language would be more
easily understood. b. AIC authors
should actively seek user feedback to identify and avoid areas of
misunderstanding. c. On-line versions
of AICs should be widely publicised, especially on the paper version where
the website download is currently given no mention. The use of effective banner style
headlines on the AIC in addition to text references should promote on line
information. d. On-line AICs
should take full advantage of expanded presentation, colour and font sizes to
enhance readability. e. High quality
colour maps should be freely available and downloadable on-line to assist
navigation specific to each event, fly-in or Rally. |
Many AIC subjects are technical in nature, and in such circumstances the use of technical language, acronyms and abbreviations is unavoidable However, the need for plain, understandable English is acknowledged and its use will be encouraged. AICs, like the AIP (of which they | |