Introduction of Stansted TMZ - 24 Sep 09

[PiperCubFlyer]

As the result of an overriding safety concern in relation to number and severity of airspace infringements in the vicinity of London Stansted Airport, the establishment of two Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZ) has been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and will take effect on 24 September 2009.

Transponder Mandatory Zone

A TMZ is defined, as a volume of airspace where aircraft wishing to enter or fly within the defined area, will be required to have and operate secondary surveillance radar equipment. TMZs are notified for the purpose of Air Navigation Order 2005 Article 20(2). This equipment must include a pressure altitude reporting transponder capable of operating in Mode A and Mode C and has the capability and functionality prescribed for Mode S Elementary Surveillance (general exemption for VFR flights for aircraft equipped with Mode A/C until March 2012). The pilot of an aircraft that wishes to operate in a TMZ without such serviceable transponder equipment may be granted access to the TMZ subject to specific ATC approval.

London Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zones

The London Stansted TMZ are detailed on the chart below.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_PdemnBAYk4A/SrAOq2qlr4I/AAAAAAAATo8/pMDhRGVfuKA/s800/Stansted%20TMZ.jpg

Transponder Mandatory Zone Access

Suitably equipped aircraft may access a London Stansted TMZ without ATC approval although such traffic is strongly recommended to afford itself of either an ATSOCA service or make use of an appropriate Monitoring Code (A0013).

The pilot of an aircraft that wishes to operate in a London Stansted TMZ without serviceable transponder equipment as defined in paragraph 2.1 may be granted access to the TMZ subject to specific ATC approval. This approval may be obtained from Farnborough Radar on frequency 132.800 during their hours of operation (0800-2000 Winter (Summer 1 hr earlier)) or from Essex Radar on frequency 120.625 at other times.

Statutory Instruments

Stansted TMZ is implemented by means of The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (London Stansted Airport) (No. 2) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2020) which come into force on 24 September 2009. The SI is available at: UK Statutory Instruments 2009 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si-2009-index)

A copy of the AIC is available at http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/yellow/EG_Circ_2009_Y_076_en.pdf
(http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/yellow/EG_Circ_2009_Y_076_en.pdf)

[NorthSouth]

The Air Cadet gliders at Wethersfield - which is right in the middle of the new TMZ - will be continuing to operate without transponders under the terms of a Letter of Agreement between MoD and NATS.

I'm probably just being thick, but how does that work? A load of intermittent primary-only returns continuing to float around underneath all the Stansted inbounds, just as they always did. So the problem is still there.

Am I missing something?

NS

[englishal]

I imagine the letter of agreement states where they are operating from and that they promise not to be in the Stanstead airspace, so Stanstead know who they are and what their intentions are and are hence no factor.

[znww5]

Alternatively, if they still get infringements, they'll know who to blame ;)

[Opsbeatch]

I believe that the VGS there contact Stansted well BEFORE they even consider venturing into thier airspace, what you have to watch for is the spam cans zipping around thinking they are clear with their heads in the cockpit and not looking out...

Have donned my hard hat and now awaiting flack...

OB:E

[NorthSouth]

I don't think any of you have got it. The gliders aren't in "Stansted's airspace". They're in a Class G Transponder Mandatory Zone from 0 to 1500 ft and are in it as soon as they're airborne from Wethersfield. If the Letter of Agreement allows them to fly in there without transponders, how is that different from any other non-transponding aircraft flying through the TMZ illegally? And if the Stansted controllers can look at one little primary blob and say to themselves "that's OK I can assume that's a glider operating out of Wethersfield", how is that any different from a Stansted controller pre-TMZ implementation looking at a little primary blob under their CTA and saying to themselves "that's OK I can assume that's an aircraft staying below the base of my CTA"?

NS

[aluminium persuader]

The pilot of an aircraft that wishes to operate in a TMZ without such serviceable transponder equipment may be granted access to the TMZ subject to specific ATC approval.

...which is exactly what Andrewsfield & Wethersfield have/will obtained and what anyone else can obtain subject to a phone/radio call and (of course) prevailing traffic situation.

ap

[NorthSouth]

Well if that's the case it's as I thought - the only change to the perceived safety of Stansted traffic from infringements of CAS from below in the CTA stubs is one of degree.

Stansted controllers will still be deeming primary-only contacts which they see within the lateral limits of the north-eastern CTA as being below CAS.

The Andrewsfield example is not relevant because they're constrained by an ATZ and the airfield itself is not in the TMZ. The gliders at Wethersfield are non-transponder and non-radio and must by definition be operating inside the TMZ as soon as they're airborne. On days when they are active with multiple gliders there will be several primary-onlies in that airspace. If Stansted are assuming all such returns to be Wethersfield gliders it leaves them open to being shafted by a rogue TMZ infringer.

The only mitigation I can see is that most infringers of the TMZ will be faster and flying straighter than gliders, which Stanted controllers might pick up.

But it seriously undermines the value of the TMZ.

I await the Heathrow Gatwick and just-about-everywhere-else TMZs with interest.

NS

[zkdli]

the letters of agreement give specific areas within the TMZ that the primary aircraft are able to operate. These are not the same size as the TMZ itself. Therefore, yes it does degrade some of the safety benefit of parts of the TMZ but not all of it....

[hatzflyer]

So the new TMZ is active..is there a new chart available with this info on, or do I just gestimate whether my line will go through it or not?
Providing I/m sqwaking do I have to talk to Them?
(This is an area I frequently use.):bored:

[chrisN]

Hatz, click on the reference to the AIC in the first posting. The AIC has diagrams.

Also, NOTAMs, specify them.

In essence, it is the area below the 1500' CTA at the NE end, and a similar shape area at the SW end over North Weald.

It is NOT the full circle that some NOTAM plotting software depicts, taken from the Q line.

Chris N.

[englishal]

So the new TMZ is active..is there a new chart available with this info on, or do I just gestimate whether my line will go through it or not?
Providing I/m sqwaking do I have to talk to Them?
(This is an area I frequently use.)
No you don't have to talk to them, though you can sqwark the "listening watch" code if you are on freq.

[hatzflyer]

I realise there is a drawing but its really close to a route I often fly and its not possible to tell from the limited view if a line drawn on track will clear or not. I know I can fly "off track" but that isn't the point.
I don't think it would be much of a defence in court if I stood up and said that I had a look at a drawing and tried to copy it onto my chart " by eye".

The point that I am making is this.. How can the CAA (nats or whoever) impose new airspace IF the date does not correspond with the issue of a chart?
Surely any busts cannot be policed untill the information is in the hands of the pilots?:ugh:

[Roffa]

The point that I am making is this.. How can the CAA (nats or whoever) impose new airspace IF the date does not correspond with the issue of a chart?
Surely any busts cannot be policed untill the information is in the hands of the pilots?

Why does it need to correspond with the issue of a chart?

There are no new lines to be drawn, it's the area below existing airspace. There has been a fair bit of publicity during the change proposal and there has been an AIC promulgated and there's also a long term NOTAM.

What more do you want?

Are you saying that private pilots are so 'unprofessional' that they can't be trusted to note such changes from those sources? Hang on, there may be a point there...

[englishal]

Well it would have been easier if they had just got a school compass and pencil, stick the point into Stanstead and drawn a circle of 13nm and then written "TMZ" in the circle rather than:

515416N 0002653E thence anti-clockwise by an arc of a circle 8 nm radius
centred on 515306N 0001406E to 520104N 0001503E - 520517N
0002124E thence clockwise by an arc of a circle 13 nm radius centred on
515306N 0001406E to 515828N 0003314E - 515416N 0002653E.514508N 0001309E - 514055N 0000652E thence clockwise by an arc of
a circle 13 nm radius centred on 515306N 0001406E to 514550N
0000316W - 515146N 0000006W - 515155N 0000120E thence anticlockwise
by an arc of a circle 8 nm radius centred on 515306N 0001309E
to 514508N 0001309E.

Just my humble opinion. In fact draw one great big circle centred on Buckingham Palace of radius 20/30/40 nm (delete as nescessary) and done the same thing would be fine by me because by the time we've finished with TMZ's there will be bitty, disjointed TMZ's littering the SE and we'll have numerous coordinates to wade through, and the resulting busts of course.

[Roffa]

I don't disagree and in fact I'd be all for what you suggest but the alphabets would kick up such a fuss there's no chance of it ever happening.

Despite them usually saying how much more like FAA land we should be, Mode C veils don't seem to be included in that rationale.

[tangovictor]

I have looked through the nats pdf, and can't find the listening out squark ? I assume you turn the radio to Stanstead , however without talking to them, what do you squark ?

[flyingman-of-kent]

At a rough guess 7000 until told to sqwark something else!

[chrisN]

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/yellow/EG_Circ_2008_Y_092_en.pdf

2.1 A pilot flying around the peripheries of London City, London Gatwick, London Luton and London Stansted Controlled Airspace,
as depicted on the attached maps, that does NOT require any air traffic service may elect to squawk a discrete SSR code as indicated
in the table below with Mode C selected if available, whilst monitoring the relevant frequency.


London Luton [and] London Stansted : 0013

Chris N.

[englishal]

It is all in the PDF:

Suitably equipped aircraft may access a London Stansted TMZ without ATC approval although such traffic is strongly recommended
to afford itself of either an ATSOCA service or make use of an appropriate Monitoring Code (A0013).

[Molesworth 1]

2.1 A pilot flying around the peripheries of London City, London Gatwick, London Luton and London Stansted Controlled Airspace,
as depicted on the attached maps, that does NOT require any air traffic service may elect to squawk a discrete SSR code as indicated
in the table below with Mode C selected if available, whilst monitoring the relevant frequency.


London Luton [and] London Stansted : 0013

Chris N.


I wish I had read this when I flew from Stapleford to Duxford on Saturday!

Stapleford Radio didn't know what I should be doing but suggested I "talk to Farnborough". This I did in the short time available before entering the TMZ. They gave me a squawk code but made no mention of the TMZ so I changed to Essex Radar who made a big fuss and gave me another squawk which repeatedly got lost in interference until some irritated airline pilot repeated it loud and clear! Then I was given clearance to enter the zone even though I was already legally in it (at least from what it says in the pdf).

I shouldn't have bothered with any of this as I have always previously set the transponder to 0013 and listened to Essex Radar - so no change was required!