Airborne_Again wrote:
So, does the Irish ANSP really require a filed flight plan for a zone transit? That would be rather unique.
Just to quote the example of Poland again, they really ban abbreviated flightplans. From the PANSA website:
Also, they even expect a full flightplan when you are operating completely OCAS, but would like to have flight information service:
So, essentially, they really require a full flightplan for any sort of cross-country! Xes, instead of pre-file, you could air-file, but that is even more hassle than pre-filing…
I’m beginning to think the UK CAA is wonderful.
Isn’t the real issue not so much the airspace per se (ridiculous as this enlargement is), but rather the access or lack thereof to said airspace? One of the reasons this works so well in the US is that – excepted Class B – access to CAS is a non-issue.
@boscomantico – doesn’t controlled airspace in Poland start at FL95 so that a VFR-FPL is only necessary when flying above?
No, any flight in controlled airspace (which means any takeoff or landing at a controlled airport) also requires a flightplan, and additionally, as written above, any flight for which you seek flight information and alerting services.
However, for the latter I am not so sure this is really enforced. I for one have on a few occasions done shortish cross countries in Poland without any flightplan and the FIS which I called did not seem to be bothered.
Isn’t the real issue not so much the airspace per se (ridiculous as this enlargement is), but rather the access or lack thereof to said airspace? One of the reasons this works so well in the US is that – excepted Class B – access to CAS is a non-issue.
To a degee, yes. Hence the discussion here about what is needed to obtain clearance to enter.
However, there is also a certain amount of NORDO GA here, and these people have no choice, therefore they will always vote for as little CAS as possible, at least CAS which touches the ground.
To me this doesn’t look like it happened because Ireland has no “AOPA”. Very few European countries have any functioning GA representation. The UK does not and the multiple bodies here mostly don’t talk to each other, as per standard “volunteer organisation ‘big character’ practice”.
I think, it happened because some “character” got into power in the Irish CAA and was able to maneuver this initiative into place without resistance. It’s like the totally mad UK infringements policy. No sane person would have implemented that. And, like in the UK, the extra CAS isn’t going to reduce infringements. They will go UP – because transits are often not granted (even if there is no traffic) and not everybody is good with executing Plan B in time.
The need for a written flight plan is crazy. They aren’t hard to file nowadays, with EVFR or SD, but that will just result in loads of VFR FPs going into the system which don’t relate to any actual route being flown, because most GA is sightseeing.
I wonder what @dublinpilot thinks of this?
172driver wrote:
Disagree. With ADS-B in you see exactly where the traffic is.
Yes, you see exactly where the traffic IS. That is also part of the problem, not part of the solution.
With information (from ATC) you don’t see anything. You only know that some dude is operating at 2k feet flying locally in an area, another one on a cross country mission at 6k from NW to SE and so on. You know their intentions and their proximate whereabouts, and therefore you can filter out most of them. With ADS-B in, it’s like looking at an ant hill. You see lots of planes moving in random directions. It’s a 21 century technology used in a 17 century manner. It’s completely backward. Instead of unloading the pilot of irrelevant information, it continuously loads the pilot with new and irrelevant information.
As an example, let’s look at how the relevant collision avoidance is done with modern cars. They have sensors around the car. They could in principle show you a “map” of everything, and some do, only for fun. The collision avoidance system however is much more subtle and forcefully active. Trying to switch lanes when the other lane is occupied, the other car is in the blind zone, then the cars gives a sharp warning signal and “grabs” the steering wheel to force the car back in the lane. When driving in dense traffic, the car will hit the brakes if it detects you are driving on a collision course with something in the front.
What’s wrong with ADS-B in system is it will give you lots of information, but not the information that enables you need to navigate inside that traffic. What is needed is:
That would still be, let’s say an 18 century system 
but it is the kind of information ATC will give you. The next step requires more intelligent aircraft, aircraft that in principle are capable of autonomous flight.
LeSving wrote:
Trying to switch lanes when the other lane is occupied, the other car is in the blind zone, then the cars gives a sharp warning signal and “grabs” the steering wheel to force the car back in the lane. When driving in dense traffic, the car will hit the brakes if it detects you are driving on a collision course with something in the front.
This stuff is insane and I’m incredibly disappointed that it’s been nodded through into production without any sort of philosophical discussion about what it means in terms of personal responsibility. But then, personal responsibility is not a fashionable concept these days.
I do not wish to drive a vehicle capable of over-riding my steering inputs or making its own uncommanded steering and braking actions. Perhaps there is a clue to be found in the fact that sensible pre-takeoff checks include verifying one can over-ride the autopilot with brute force.
Graham wrote:
I do not wish to drive a vehicle capable of over-riding my steering inputs or making its own uncommanded steering and braking actions.
LOL No one is forcing you. A T-Ford will do even today. My point was that all history has shown that the technology that survives in the end is the technology that unloads. It has to free up mental capacity by doing things for you, or do physical work for you. It has to make life easier or enable you to do things you couldn’t easily do without that technology. ADS-B in do the exact opposite. The core technology is really good, but the implementation of it is not. It will be like having a FADEC, but instead of actually doing stuff like controlling the engine, it overloads you with (additional) data you have to filter, respond and react to, and where 95% is irrelevant data, and it doesn’t even tell you it is. It is a step back, not a step fwd.
