Belgian Airspace infringements Reduction Plan B/AIRP

Belgian Airspace infringements Reduction Plan B/AIRP B/AIRP

Topics: • The speaker • European Airspace Infringement Action Plan • Overview of some infringements in Belgium in 2012 • Numbers and risks analysis for the Belgian Airspace • B/AIRP • Tips for the GA VFR pilot • What should I do if? • 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 unautho-rized penetration of a notified airspacewithout 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 General aviation VFR-traffic B/AIRP

2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe Dangers of an Airspace Infringement: MID-AIR COLLISION: Two airplanes hitting each other in the air, usually leading to severe damage and crash landing afterwards LOSS OF SEPARATION: 2 airplanes getting too close to each other ( LoS ) 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 31st, 1986 ( image: Cineflix ). Both airplanes crashed, killing all on board, as well as more people on the ground… B/AIRP

2. Airspace Infringement plan Europe Dangers of an Airspace Infringement: 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 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: • 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 ) • 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: Through extensive cooperation, an action plan must list the actions, with a reference number. Each action must also have a target date for imple-mentation Each action should also quantify the actual problem and propose a reduction percentage, realized by a deadline 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 with Brussels Info before. • 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”: Corridor between EBBR - EBAW is narrow Corridor between EBCI - EBBE is narrow 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 Small corridors between certain CTR and national borders ( EBAW, EBLG, EBFS and EBCB ) B/AIRP

4. Numbers and risk analysis: 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): A candidate PPL(A) must attend theoretical course for almost 1 year ( 10 subjects ) The candidate must pass all subjects with 75% at an official BCAA exam: the required theoretical knowledge level is high! Afterwards the candidate must pass an initial skill-test and a bi-annual “re-check” 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): Only a small minority is sloppy and over confident: no flight preparation, complacent, etc. Flying activities in Belgium come to a halt for most of the winter season ( October – March ) 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): Many pilots are aware of this, but have few options for help: Pilot training classically emphasizes very much on initial pilot training, but few organizations offer systematic recurrent training… 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: Refresher training Sabena Aeroclub, March 7th, 2012: over 50 participants! B/AIRP

4. Numbers and risk analysis: Situation of the General Aviation VFR- pilot ( ULM ): The theoretical requirements/conditions are weak and a lot of the responsibilities lie with the pilot ULM used to be very simple kinds of airplanes Nowadays, ULM can fly faster and further than “Airplanes” 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 ): My question to the ULM-society: please reflect on making more theoretical exams (PPL?) mandatory To please the authority? No. For your own safety… BCAA training department 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: ULM hardly appear in the AI-statistics HOWEVER: It’s very hard to detect ULM: Transponder ( mode A-C-S ) not mandatory for ULM ( so very hard to detect by ATC ) Use of radio? Consequently used by ULM-pilots? 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: • Analysis of the situation in Belgium • Coordination with all major players involved • Compose an action plan, specific for Belgium B/AIRP

5. B/AIRP: • Participating members: • BCAA ( DGLV/DGTA ) • Belgocontrol • Belgian Air Force • 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: Not produced by BCAA, but by military organisa-tion NGI ( National Geographic Institute ) The map is inconsistent, with regards to MSA and contains a lot of irrelevant information, for general aviation VFR -traffic 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 cause of some infringements B/AIRP

5. B/AIRP: • The B/AIRP team proposes the following changes: • 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… ) • Omission of military training areas ( 0-500 ft AGL ) B/AIRP

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

Belgian Airspace infringements Reduction Plan B/AIRP