Transcript PowerPoint-presentatie
B/AIRP
Belgian Airspace infringements Reduction Plan B/AIRP
Topics:
1. The speaker 2. European Airspace Infringement Action Plan 3. Overview of some infringements in Belgium in 2012 4. Numbers and risks analysis for the Belgian Airspace 5. B/AIRP 6. Tips for the GA VFR pilot 7. What should I do if?
8. Conclusions B/AIRP
1. The speaker:
• Jelle Vanderhaeghe, Licensing surveyor BCAA • Engineer / CPL(A) pilot license holder • Licensing & Training Department • Oversight of FTO/TRTO • Expert in the case of disputed exam questions ( theory ) • Freelance Ground Instructor PPL(A)-ATPL(A) • Juror in the ULM-instructor “didactic exam” at BCAA • National coordinator B/AIRP
B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe
• Initiative taken by Eurocontrol, in 2006 • Definition: An airspace infringement is an
rized penetration of a notified airspace unautho without prior request and obtaining approval from the controlling authority of that airspace
• The airspaces referred to are the following ones:
Airspaces type A to E, Airways, TMA’s, CTR’s and P ( Prohibited ), D ( Danger ) and R ( Restricted ) areas and TRA’s and ATZ B/AIRP
2. European Airspace Infringements
Origins of infringements: More than 50% of the airspace infringements is caused by General Aviation VFR Traffic
• •
REASONS: GA VFR flights are used to per forming OWN navigation, in G class airspace ( outside of the notified airspaces ), where freedom of navigation exists IFR traffic is used to being under control by ATC, in and out of the notified airspaces B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe
Areas of infringements:
• • •
76% of the airspace infringe ments consists of infringements into CTR’s and TMA’s , the pro tective areas around controlled airports Reasons for this may be that there is very little reporting capability for the other areas, compared to ATC responsible for CTR’s and TMA’s The Belgian Airspace infringe ment plan focusses on CTR’s and TMA’s mainly B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe
Causes of infringements:
• • •
It’s very hard to identify 1 single reason for Airspace Infringe ments: Generally skill and knowledge drops drastically with the ave rage “hobby”-pilot, that only flies the mandatory yearly hours… Awareness training, continuous refresher, or recurrent training is necessary for aviation VFR-traffic General B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe
Dangers of an Airspace Infringement: 1. MID-AIR COLLISION: Two airplanes hitting each other in the air, usually leading to severe damage and crash landing afterwards
Seconds before impact: Aeromexico 498 ( DC-9 ) on a collision course with a PA-28 that had committed an Airspace Infringement. None of the pilots had noticed the other airplane, prior to the mid-air collision on August 31 st , 1986 ( image: Cineflix ).
Both airplanes crashed, killing all on board, as well as more people on the ground…
2. LOSS OF SEPARATION: 2 airplanes getting too close to each other ( LoS ) B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe
Dangers of an Airspace Infringement: 3. DISRUPTION OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS: Extra delays, fuel burn and costs for the operators Extra workload for ATC and risk of creating secondary safety hazards, by focusing too much on the airplane committing the infringement 3. DISRUPTION OF MILITARY OPERATIONS: Often these require extensive planning and coor dination, in a limited time frame B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan
Highlights of the Eurocontrol Action Plan:
• • • •
1. Cooperation/coordination between multiple services: BCAA: Civil Aviation Authority ( BCAA/DGLV/DGTA ) ANS: Air Navigation Service ( Belgocontrol ) MIL: Military organizations ( BAF/Belgian Air Force ) USE: All airspace users ( KBAC for Belgium ) 2. A plan for each country should be set up, according to the local situation: in Belgium this is the B/AIRP B/AIRP
2. Airspace Infringement plan
Highlights of the Eurocontrol Action Plan: 3. Through extensive cooperation, an action plan must list the actions, with a reference number.
4. Each action must also have a target date for imple mentation 5. Each action should also quantify the actual problem and propose a reduc tion percentage, realized by a deadline 6. The emphasis should be on POSITIVE aspects , not punishment, but training and awareness stimulation B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 15/03/2012, C150 OO-XXX • Airplane crosses EBBE ( Beauve-
chain, military CTR ). No per mission was asked, no radio con tact was established
• The airplane came from St-Ghis-
lain, was intercepted at 1.600 ft and identified B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 15/03/2012, 2 PC7 NA-XXX &
NA-XXX
• Airplanes
cross EBBR TMA ( Brussels National, Civil TMA ), at 4.000 ft
• No permission was asked, no
radio contact established B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 02/04/2012, PH-XXX • Airplane takes off from Weert,
Budel ( EHBD ) located inside of the CTR of Kleine Brogel ( EBBL )
• Airplane did not contact EBBL,
and climbed to 1.100 ft. It left the EBBL military CTR on a Westerly heading, destination LFAT ( Le Touquet ) B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 01/04/2012, PA28, OO-XXX • Airplane crosses EBLG TMA 2
( Liège, Civil TMA ), and CTR, at 2.000 ft
• No permission was asked, no
radio contact made
• Should this be considered an in-
fringement, if the airplane was on the lower edge ( 2.000 ft )?
• On the 1/250.000th map the
order between the upper and lower has been inverted. This may have been a possible cause B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 30/03/2012, SR20, F-XXXX • Airplane enters EBLG CTR on the
R220 , in the direction of the runway axis at 1.400 ft
• No permission was asked, no
radio contact made: the pilot was still on the Belga frequency
• The flight was on its way from
France to Germany
• Can
unfamiliarity with the Belgian airspace have been a contributing factor?
B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 30/12/2011, Beech Skipper, OO-
XXX,
• Infringement of EBLG CTR, while
flying between VOR LGE R330 5 NM and R360 7 NM at 1.600 ft
• Upon verification, the airplane
flies along the CTR edge. Is this considered an infringement?
B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 16/02/2012, Cessna 310, D-XXX • Flight from France to Germany • Infringement of EBBL ( Kleine
Brogel ), military CTR, 6 NM north of the airbase on its way to Monchengladbach
• Had been in radio contact with
Brussels info, switched over to Monchengladbach without con tacting Kleine Brogel B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 28/03/2012, Robin DR 300, OO-
XXX
• Crossing EBBE ( Beauvechain ),
without radio contact. Was in contact before.
with Brussels Info
• Pilot stated to have called Belga
radar and did not receive a reply
• Out of this info, the pilot assu-
med EBBE was not active
• Can/could more precautionary
messages be shared on Brussels Info?
B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 02/02/2012, Cessna 210, NXXXX • Crossing EBBR ( Brussels Natio-
nal ), after take-off in EBGB, located in the ATZ of the Brus sels CTR
• Inspite of all pilots flying at
EBGB, this pilot crossed the Brussels CTR right after take-off
• Cutting corners? • Pilot unfamiliar with the air-
field?
• More emphasis required to the
procedures for visitors at airports with specific situation?
B/AIRP
3. Infringements in Belgian airspace:
• 04/05/2012, Cessna 152, OO-
XXX
• Crossing EBFS ( Florennes ),
military CTR, eastern edge at 2.200 ft, on a flight from EBCI to EBCI.
• The Eastern EBFS CTR is a valley
in which a river flows. Did the pilot assess the situation wrong? ( = Flew on the wrong side of the valley? ) B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Quantification of the Belgian Airspace infringements: B/AIRP
• • •
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Quantification of the Belgian Airspace infringements: 127 infringements reported in 2012 There are slightly more infringements in the weekends but not as drastically as one would expect There are slightly more infringements in the summer, but once again not as drastically one would expect B/AIRP
•
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
At the end of the Summer of 2012, this was the distribution, between airplane registrations: B/AIRP
• • • •
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Qualification of the Belgian Airspace infringements: EBCI ( Charleroi ) and EBLG ( Liège ) : civil CTR/TMA seem to have the most infringements EBBE ( Beauvechain ) and EBBL ( Kleine Brogel ) : military CTR seem to have the most infringements EBAW ( Antwerpen ), EBOS ( Oostende ), EBBR ( Brussels ), EBFS ( Florennes ), EBCV ( Chièvres ) seem to be less prone to infringements There is more focus on the first 4… B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Overview of the Belgian Airspace: CTR’s B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Overview of the Belgian Airspace: CTR’s + TMA’s B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
How do I fly from EBGB to EBSP in G-class airspace?
4 major course cor rection required!
B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
How do I fly from EBGB to EBSH in G-class airspace?
7 major course cor rection required!
B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Problem areas from a pilot’s point of view: B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Certain corridors seem like “death traps”: 1. Corridor between EBBR - EBAW is narrow 2. Corridor between EBCI - EBBE is narrow 3. The organisation of a multitude of different airspace ( TMA-CTR-… ) types in a very small area, between EBCI - EBBE and EBBE - EBBR - EBBL is very confusing 4. Small corridors between certain CTR and national borders ( EBAW, EBLG, EBFS and EBCB ) B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
5. In many of these narrow corridors, there are very few natural landmarks available for orientation purposes, and no useful navigation beacons for navigating through these narrow corridors B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
6. The location of many VOR beacons seems chosen for IFR-traffic, and not really a help for VFR-traffic in G-class airspace B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot (PPL): 1. A candidate PPL(A) must attend theoretical course for almost 1 year ( 10 subjects ) 2. The candidate must pass all subjects with 75% at an official BCAA exam: the required theoretical knowledge level is high!
3. Afterwards the candidate must pass an initial skill test and a bi-annual “re-check” 4. The initial requirements to obtain a PPL(A)-license are high B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot (PPL): 5. Only a small minority is sloppy and over confident: no flight preparation, complacent, etc.
6. Flying activities in Belgium come to a halt for most of the winter season ( October – March ) 7. Skill decreases due to long breaks and the also because of the cost of flying ( average flying hours are going down everywhere ) B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot (PPL): 8. Many pilots are aware of this, but have few options for help: 9. Pilot training classically emphasizes very much on initial pilot training, but few organizations offer systematic recurrent training… 10. Recurrent training, also known as “refresher training”, specifically aimed at license holders is stimulated by the BCAA Training Department, FOR ALL PILOTS B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot ( ULM ): 1. The theoretical requirements/conditions are weak and a lot of the responsibilities lie with the pilot 2. ULM used to be very simple kinds of airplanes 3. Nowadays, ULM can fly faster and further than “Airplanes” 4. The only theoretical mandatory exam for ULM-pilots is “Air Law”, the remaining subjects are to be studied “at the discretion of the pilot”? B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot ( ULM ): 5. My question to the ULM-society: please reflect on making more theoretical exams (PPL?) mandatory 6. To please the authority? No. 7. For your own safety… 8. BCAA training depart ment reaches out to raise the theoretical knowledge of all pilots to the highest level B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot :
• Why do private pilots prefer to remain in G-class
airspace instead of communicating with, and cros sing a CTR? Diminishing skills and confidence…
• Due to the diminishing skill, or to avoid the
trouble of contacting ATC, many GA VFR-pilots prefer to remain in G-class airspace
• ULM-instructors are stimulated to focus check-
flights more on use of the radio, and flying in controlled airspace’s ( both military and civil )!
B/AIRP
4. Numbers and risk analysis:
Airspace Infringements by ULM: 1. ULM hardly appear in the AI-statistics 2. HOWEVER: It’s very hard to detect ULM: Transponder ( mode A-C-S ) not mandatory for ULM ( so very hard to detect by ATC ) 3. Use of radio? Consequently used by ULM-pilots?
4. Please provide “refresh courses” for all your pilots and please devote a part of it to focus on the com plex airspace in Belgium B/AIRP
• • •
5. B/AIRP:
= BELGIAN AIRSPACE INFRINGEMENT REDUCTION PLAN Initiated by BCAA in June 2012 National Coordinator: Jelle Vanderhaeghe Three main goals: 1. Analysis of the situation in Belgium 2. Coordination with all major players involved 3. Compose an action plan, specific for Belgium B/AIRP
5. B/AIRP:
Participating members: 1. BCAA ( DGLV/DGTA ) 2. Belgocontrol 3. Belgian Air Force 4. RBAC ( Royal Belgian Aeroclub, KBAC/ACBR ) B/AIRP
• • • •
5. B/AIRP:
Focus on VFR-traffic ( = G-class airspace users ) Production of an “Airspace Infringement” leaflet, to increase awareness of the problem Proposed publication: End of March 2013 Distribution in Belgium AND ABROAD!
B/AIRP
5. B/AIRP:
Modification of the low-level 1/250.000 chart: 1. Not produced by BCAA, but by military organisa tion NGI ( National Geographic Institute ) 2. The map is inconsistent, with regards to MSA and contains a lot of irrelevant information, for general aviation VFR -traffic 3. The map changed its approach: prior to 2012 first the lower level of a notified airspace was mentio ned, followed by the upper level. In the 2012 ver sion, this sequence was inversed, and is a likely B/AIRP cause of some infringements
5. B/AIRP:
The B/AIRP team proposes the following changes: 1. Development of a separate version of the map for General Aviation VFR traffic ( airplanes ), with:
• •
Omission of names of small villages Omission of Military channel frequencies
• •
Addition of TWR and APP frequencies of CTR’s Reintroduction of logical order of vertical bounda ries indicated for TMA’s ( first the lower… )
•
B/AIRP Omission of military training areas ( 0-500 ft AGL )
• • •
5. B/AIRP:
The B/AIRP team proposes the following changes: Consistent use of colors Using red only for P/D/R-zones and CTR’s Consistent use of MSA ( Minimum Safe Altitude ) instead of MEF ( Maximum Elevation Figures )
•
OVERALL: Create a map strictly devoted to the General Aviation VFR-pilot B/AIRP team will be included in the next meetings with ING, the provider of the maps B/AIRP
• • •
5. B/AIRP:
2. Composition of a “VFR-guide” for Belgian airspace Half of the infringements in Belgium is committed by non-”OO” airplanes A large focus of B/AIRP will be to reach foreign registered airplanes ( PH-/D-/F-/N- ) The work on this is scheduled to begin in the Summer of 2013 B/AIRP
• • •
5. B/AIRP:
3. Simplification of the Belgian airspace The Belgian airspace is congested, hard to comprehend, etc.
B/AIRP team will participate in meeting regarding the airspace organization ( BELANC ) The process will be long and may be very difficult, and will be the result of compromise..
B/AIRP
• • • •
5. B/AIRP:
4. Standardization of FIS: FIS operators are not obliged to provide SEPARA TION/ADVICE/WARNINGS/etc!
Depending on the operator and the situation, some warn, other’s don’t… The agreement between BCAA and Belgocontrol is to standardize the guidelines for FIS Operators It is however not always possible for a FIS Opera tor to warn pilots about other traffic/infringe ments!
B/AIRP
• • • •
5. B/AIRP:
4. Standardization of FIS: On sunny days, FIS becomes practically useless Belgocontrol cannot “ad hoc” add an extra control ler, if it is sunny outside Splitting the Belgian FIS requires investment on various levels ( infrastructure, agreements, extra staff, etc. ) The most efficient solution at that point is to monitor the 126.9 MHz, if your communication is not really necessary B/AIRP
• • •
5. B/AIRP:
4. Standardization of FIS: The FIS Operator can see the airplane ( blip of the transponder ) + receives the identification via the mandatory Mode S transponder anyway Phraseology “Request traffic info” is commonly used among VFR-pilots, but not very accurate, nor to the point: as there is no Air Traffic Control, the PILOT remains responsible for own navigation!
In case of busy days, monitor the frequency, but leave it free for higher priority messages B/AIRP
5. B/AIRP:
Commonly used navigation tools: 1. The low-level 1/250.000 chart 2. Jeppesen 1/500.000
th France chart of the Netherlands, 3. AIP Belgium ( eAIP on the Belgocontrol website, or CD with updates ) 4. NOTAM’s
•
Instructors are asked to instruct/motivate stu dents in the use of the AIP and NOTAM’s, to be B/AIRP aware of changes in the Belgian airspace!
5. B/AIRP:
Most recent navigation tools: 1. GPS-application
• •
2. Tablet-applications ( Airnav pro, Skydemon, … ) The use of all these tools must be encouraged!
HOWEVER: These tools may also have the adverse effect of complacency, leading to a lack of flight preparation and situational awareness in flight!
The “Direct To” function of a GPS can be a life saver in many cases of loss of situational awareness. However, if not properly monitored by the pilot, it may lead you straight through areas you’re not supposed to be…
B/AIRP
• • • •
5. B/AIRP:
Refresher courses: BCAA stimulates every pilot training organisation to not only initial pilot training, but also systema tically provide refresher courses Pilots are in high demand!
Please take the initiative in your training organiza tion Please allow non-members of your organizations to also attend these courses!
B/AIRP
6. Tips for the GA VFR-Pilot:
•
Attend refresher courses, when possible
•
Study the aeronautical maps of Belgium, with every new version that is published
•
Draw the routing of your flight on the map ( classic method is still useful! ) and identify possible risk areas and determine en-route heading & altitudes
•
REMEMBER: FAILING TO PREPARE, IS PREPARING TO FAIL!
B/AIRP
6. Tips for the GA VFR-Pilot:
•
Read NOTAM’s and AIP, with a free Belgocontrol “eAIP” acount
•
Use the “AMDT”-function, to get a quick update of the most significant changes in the AIP!
•
Use GPS as a useful add-on, not as your main nav-aid!
•
Monitor the 126,9 ( Brussels Info ) or 129,325 MHz ( Belga ) throughout the flight B/AIRP
6. Tips for the GA VFR-Pilot:
•
In case of doubt: please verify with the Information Services, about frequencies and/or whe ther a civilian or military aero drome is active
•
Ask the proper clearance to cross an active CTR/TMA in time, instead of trying to navi gate around it B/AIRP
•
Info services and ATC are there to help pilots, not the other way around…
6. Tips for the GA VFR-Pilot:
•
Watch your altitude: by trying to circumnavigate a CTR, and not paying attention to the altitude, you may involuntarily enter the TMA on top of it!
•
Try to fly in tandem ( two pilots ) and share the tasks ( 1 pilot fly ing, 1 pilot handling the radio and navigation ) as often as possible B/AIRP
7. What should I do if I…?
•
… if I committed an airspace infringement?
•
Pilots should report their infringement to:
• •
Prosecution remains possible, but only in case of suspected gross negligence, or bad intent For BCAA it’s mostly important to have a clear view of the actual situation and problems B/AIRP
7. What should I do if I…?
•
You may be asked to fill in a questionnaire ( which can be found on the BCAA website )
•
The aim is to evolve towards an open reporting culture, where the whole community can learn from the mistakes made… B/AIRP
8. Conclusions:
•
BCAA is monitoring Airspace Infringements and is trying to reduce the amount of incidents, in cooperation with pilots and organization
•
BCAA training department ( and all the other department as well ) reach out to the ULM community to work closer together
•
Final goal: increase awareness and safety B/AIRP
8. Conclusions:
•
Flying is fun and not dangerous but it holds risks: the air is not easily forgiving mistakes
•
Risks must be dealt with in a responsible way
•
We want to help : it’s a common goal
•
Safety is a continuous process, we all need to work on
•
Finally BCAA wishes to thank the ULM-society for this initiative and strongly encourages every one to continue such initiatives B/AIRP
5. B/AIRP
Do you have any further questions/suggestions?
Jelle Vanderhaeghe, 02 / 277 43 77 [email protected]
B/AIRP