CHIRP commends the reporter for submitting their report. The reporter mentions ‘’last minute planning’’, and in addition that, in the reporter’s opinion, ‘’a lack of ground feature related airspace boundary design increases the chances of an airspace infringement by visual/VFR pilots”.
Last minute planning may potentially increase the risk of something untoward occurring during a flight and where possible sufficient time for flight planning should be allowed. The second point is interesting in that it suggests that airspace boundaries, normally intended for IFR, should be created using prominent visual features to aide visual / VFR pilots. Whilst this is one way of mitigating what occurred in this scenario, unfortunately it isn’t necessarily a practical or realistic option when one considers how much controlled airspace is near or adjacent to cities / built up areas with few obvious and unique ground features. Beyond taking sufficient time taken for flight planning using appropriate charts, making full use of in-flight technology, such a Bluetooth audio warning for airspace avoidance, is recommended. Also useful is using the CAA’s “take two” advice which recommends planning a minimum 2nm from edge of controlled airspace and to stay at least 200’ above/below – https://www.caa.co.uk/avoiding airspace infringements
