skydriller wrote:
I do know for sure that in the past many minor airspace infringements
Exactly my point: There is no such thing as a “minor” airspace infringements (as there is no such thing as a minor granite infringement) – this is a binary event: You either are in an airspace or not. You can not be “minor” in an airspace where you are not allowed to be.
I’m not saying that airspace is granite. To the contrary I’m saying that root cause of airspace infringements is exactly that airspace is not granite and we as pilots are not taking it as seriously as granite.
A high success rate in granite avoidance (even if the granite is covered with clouds and we can not see its exact boundaries) teaches us, that failure of airspace avoidance is not caused by impossibility but by lack of taking it as seriously as granite.
skydriller wrote:
If you seriously think that I have ever taken airspace busts lightly…
Taking it lightly is a subjektive term – but the mere fact that you talk about “minor airspace infringements” creates the impression that you do not have a week of sleepless nights after each such event asking yourself how such a severe mistake could happen and what you could do to avoid it in the future.
Just to be clear: Neither do I! The only difference might be that I accept the fact that for me the core reason is that I do not take it seriously enough while you seem to be offended by the thought that airspace infringements are no force major but cause by misbehavior of us pilots.
Sorry, when flying out of ENVA with the airspace at 2000’ and the ground at 1000’, I take the limit of the airspace less seriously than the ground, eg, I fly at 1800’. If there is an updraft I might end up at 2100’ and correct it as soon as I can,but I not loosing sleep over it. Because the alternate is flying lower and the downdraft will get you to sleep permanently! And if you look at the rout shown by LeSving, you can clearly see that the margin is very small there also… Comparing to IFR avoiding granite does not work on this types of flight the margins are radically different, and when choosing between granite and airspace, well if you choose the later you live to take ear the complaints from ATC, granite will not complain though…
@Malibuflyer – take a look at the pics @LeSving posted. You talk about there not being a minor bust – If you are 300ft above granite, with airspace 200ft above which way do you make sure you are trimmed? Plus you need to remember that transponders can read +/- 300ft in some cases perfectly legally. In the past a pilot was assumed to be below airspace – no longer. And are you aware of the accuracy of the average radar head compared to GPS?
Flying along the Cote d’Azure low level route a couple of years ago I was at 500ft and
really watching my height when Nice info asked me my altitude. On confirming 500ft, I was asked to decend 300ft to remain under their airspace while an inbound arrived… Flying at 250ft over the Antibes mansions is fun 
Regards, SD..
WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
when choosing between granite and airspace
I recall something like one needs to maintain 500ft/1kft separation from granite > cloud, airspace, traffic
Not sure about various legalities from losing 500ft/1kft separation from the last 3 items but I am very convinced that flying inside terrain is strictly illegal, not sure why it is not reported & banned?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Despite this – and the fact that now we have GPS which was largely unknown at that time – the airspace infringements have actually increased, not decreased (even when corrected for higher traffic). Reason imho is twofold:
1.) The consequences of an infringement at theses days would have been to be escorted to the next military airbase by a starfighter.
2.) Exactly due to the lack of GPS nobody would have tried to track the boundary of an airspace by just few 100m but we kept well away so that we are clearly out of the airspace (mainly due to 1.).
Don’t forget the much lower detection rate. Transponder carriage is probably much higher today, not to mention things like ADS-B and the much more precise Mode-S (25 ft resolution). Many, many more busts would have simply gone undetected because the radar didn’t get even a primary return off some wood and fabric machine and an enormous number of vertical busts would have gone undetected.
On the other hand, I would love to see a Starfighter try to escort an Auster, given the Starfighter has guidance fins rather than wings! :-)
Someone previously in the thread likened airspace busts to running red lights in a car, however, I don’t really agree: you can see a red traffic light, you can see the boundaries of the road and the lane you’re in, you can see the stop line. Airspace however is an invisible 3D construction you need special equipment to detect.
LeSving wrote:
We flew over the mountain slope at perhaps 2-300 feet AGL, and with only 300 feet up to the TMA I sometimes wonder what I shall answer if I flew into the TMA without clearance, and they ask me to get out. Just “unable” or “this aircraft don’t handle granite well”
IIRC, by ICAO standards, a control area can not have a lower limit less than 700 ft AGL. You (or the NLF or AOPA) should point this out to Avinor.
Airborne_Again wrote:
IIRC, by ICAO standards, a control area can not have a lower limit less than 700 ft AGL. You (or the NLF or AOPA) should point this out to Avinor.
Interesting. Do you have the exact reference?
LeSving wrote:
Interesting. Do you have the exact reference?
It was a very long time ago that I read this. I’m positive it used to be an ICAO standard, but of course may not be anymore. I can try to look it up.
In ICAO Annex 11, 2.9.3.2 A lower limit of a control area shall be established at a height above the ground or water of not less than 200 m (700 ft).
See FOCA docs, the Swiss tend to document every inch of their regulations or designs
This is very interesting. I’m sure AVINOR knows all this though. TMAs are 700 feet AGL over the sea many places (why 700 and not 1000? Now I know ) ICAO isn’t law or regulations, and TMAs in a hilly country like Norway for sure must be difficult or impossible when obeying that 700 feet limit everywhere. There is a lateral component also I would think?
However, LT likes to emphasize the importance of airspace infringements. That importance for sure gets in a dubious light when the TMAs don’t follow the very basic of what ICAO specifies and recommends. Airspaces and TMAs are after all ICAO constructs. I have never heard of anyone getting busted (as in UK busted). We don’t have that problem, but as I see it, at any point in time we are only one over eager dude (at LT) away from that happening. As of now, no problem.
All in all I think the important thing is to think of the alternatives. In Norway you will always be granted right to fly (VRR, “on the fly”) in controlled airspace unless there is a good reason not to. In that area above, the reason would be a 737 skimming the mountains on it’s approach to ENVA. What would the alternative be? It for sure would be more complex airspaces, more oddly shaped and less generic. It would also be stricter control and harder “punishment” of busting. Would the alternative be better? Not likely IMO. On the other hand, do those 737s need airspaces going below the surface of granite? I don’t think so. AVINOR has painted with a very big brush here, unnecessary big IMO. I have to hear with them.
