PDA

View Full Version : Crossing ATZ above 2000ft - need to call in?


AdamFrisch
14th May 2011, 12:39
I don't fly as much in the UK these days, so I'm a bit rusty on the regs. But here's what happened the day before yesterday I was flying from Lydd to Denham and had radar service from Farnborough. As you get squeezed between LCY and Stansted's airspace, you kind of have to go over Stapleford. I was at 2300ft.

Farnborough: "G-XXXX, Do you want to call Stapleford and then get back to me after the crossing?"
Me: "Do I have to?"
Farnborough: "If you're routing through, then yes. But if you avoid it you don't, of course".

I though I was clear as the ATZ only goes to 2000ft AAL, no? Why did she ask me to call in - she had my height info as she just beforehand had called out traffic to me. Anyway, I tracked around it. No huge thing, but I'm just curious if I've missed something pertinent.

Conventional Gear
14th May 2011, 12:57
Just seems like common sense that if you are routing over someones ATZ you would talk to them.

I was always taught to, don't see the problem.

It might not apply to Stapleford, but it could be there is a temporary aerobatics box over the airfield, parachute dropping etc. These are reasons I can think of that might make a quick call very worthwhile before routing over an ATZ. Fair enough if you have done your planning you should know already but a quick call, 'G-XX blah blah radio routing overhead for known traffic' could save you spoiling yours or someone else's day.

I use to fly with a pilot who would say 'I never talk to them, I'm above the ATZ so why bother' add to that a thousand other lapses in airmanship and you'll understand why I say 'use to fly with'. ;)

welliewanger
14th May 2011, 13:12
^^^ What he said ^^^
Although you are not required to talk to them, you are much closer to them so they can give you much more relevant information which Farnborough can't. I've not known of any meat bombing there (sky divers) but there's loads of flying training along with the general chaos which that creates. And what about the aircraft that just took off without a transponder, or the aircraft which is doing a practice forced landing from the overhead (joining from above the ATZ)

There are plenty of things which you don't have to do in this game, but it's still a good idea to do them. That's almost the definition of airmanship.

AdamFrisch
14th May 2011, 13:14
I would normally call in out of courtesy, but up there where it can be rather busy, I'd prefer to stay with the radar service. There have been some close encounters there on previous flights. And sure enough, tracking around it to the south I had two aircraft departing from Stapleford that climbed towards me in a turn. It would have been safer going over the top of the airfield.

IO540
14th May 2011, 13:42
You don't need to call them legally if above 2000ft AAL.

It is often said you should, but ask yourself the question of what exactly this will do with Stapleford which has

- no ATC
- no radar
- no obligation to pass traffic info to you
- no means to pass reliable traffic into to anybody (because of no radar)
- no obligation to tell anybody else about you
- without radar, subject to the usual tricks of inbound pilots being "vague" about their position

It is far better to give them a wide berth, say 5nm, and not talk to them. Or transit at a much higher level, say 4000ft AAL, but you can't do that in this case because of CAS.

I never call up aerodromes like that. Can't see the point.

Diddley Dee
14th May 2011, 14:12
You were at 2300 QNH, stapleford elevation is 185 feet so you were 115 feet above the ATZ. Personally if i were transitting that close laterally and vertically to an ATZ of what is a reasonably active GA airfield I would have taken up Farnboro's offer of call and return or have called them myself on box 2...... lots of UK airfields like their overhead joins.
DD

Conventional Gear
14th May 2011, 14:18
I would normally call in out of courtesy, but up there where it can be rather busy, I'd prefer to stay with the radar service. There have been some close encounters there on previous flights. And sure enough, tracking around it to the south I had two aircraft departing from Stapleford that climbed towards me in a turn. It would have been safer going over the top of the airfield.

Then it really comes down to your call as PIC.

It's perhaps unfair for Farnborough to have put pressure on a call you technically don't have to make. My own view and I've routed over Stapleford often as I can't really see how to avoid it at times, is for the very short time one is talking to them the radar service is not as important as eyeballs on sticks. Not only have you got the flying training, you also have the LAM VOR and everyone who wants to squeeze between London City CTR and and Stansted CTA in the same airspace. The available headroom over the ATZ isn't a lot either so expect traffic from all directions at your level.

On the one hand I can see why you would want to stick to your radar service, on the other quite frankly in VFR you are much more into the realms of see and avoid, much like being in the vicinity of any busy club circuit without full ATC.

My point being, would you totally rely on a radar service in an area with flying training, people doing navigation turns in the same airspace etc etc. I wouldn't, there isn't time for them to warn you.

24Carrot
14th May 2011, 14:39
Stapleford is quite a choke point vertically, with the ATZ up to 2185 and then the LTMA at 2500, so any other traffic is prob90 at 2300 as well.

Even if Stapleford have nothing to say, a call means other traffic on frequency can hear me and I can hear them.

FREDAcheck
14th May 2011, 15:03
It is far better to give them a wide berth, say 5nm, and not talk to them. Or transit at a much higher level, say 4000ft AAL, but you can't do that in this case because of CAS.
So would I, but as you say that's not on here. 5 miles to the S and you're in London/City CTA, 5 miles to the N and you're in Stansted CTR, and at 4000 feet you're in LTMA.

I've not had Farnborough ask me to change to Stapleford, and if I were getting a Traffic Service then I probably wouldn't volunteer to. However, if Farnborough recommended I did, I might take that as "there's lots of stuff there I haven't got time to warn you about, but is likely to be talking to Stapleford".

IO540
14th May 2011, 15:22
My solution is to not fly in that area :)

Otherwise, I would pass N of Stapleford at 1400 ft, well outside their ATZ and keeping a very good lookout (an awful lot of UK GA flies at 1000-1500ft) and getting out of there really fast.

On a busy day you won't get a radar service out of Farnborough anyway...

late-joiner
14th May 2011, 15:26
I was doing the same a couple of weekends ago routing from the west overhead Stapleford and on to Earls Colne, with Farnborough Radar. On the way there, Farnborough radar asked for my intentions as I was approaching the Stapleford ATZ. I replied I intended to go through the overhead at 2200+ feet. They seemed happy with that and I remained with them.

On the way back as I was approaching the ATZ, I was asked whether I would like to change to Stapleford A/G for a few minutes, but retain squawk. So I said yes and did it that way.

I am a new PPL so on my return to base asked one of my instructors what was the most professional and/or safe way to do it. His view was negotiate a transit of the ATZ (which I take to mean do not necessarily squeeze above it and below London) or if not possible then go to the south of the ATZ. On reflection, I am inclined to think going to the south makes it more likely you will meet conflicting traffic arriving and departing from Stapleford, so my inclination is overhead is better.

wsmempson
14th May 2011, 15:26
On VFR days, I tend to stick Stapleford on box two just for a little aerodrome awareness, but I'm with IO540 inasmuchas once above their ATZ - and working Farnborough for a traffic service - there isn't much that Stapleford can usefully tell me. On the occasions that I have called, the FISO has invariably sounded rather put out that anyone should waste his time by calling up, when the most info that he can give me is the local QNH.

On IFR days, I wouldn't bother to even put them on box2.

Conventional Gear
14th May 2011, 16:20
Otherwise, I would pass N of Stapleford at 1400 ft, well outside their ATZ and keeping a very good lookout (an awful lot of UK GA flies at 1000-1500ft) and getting out of there really fast.

On a busy day you won't get a radar service out of Farnborough anyway...

Well, if you intend to do what you say, you'll have to talk to either Farnborough radar, Essex radar or Stansted to get permission to enter the transponder mandatory zone which is 'restricted airspace'. :)

IO540
14th May 2011, 16:31
I know I bang on about this, but this also illustrates the need for really accurate navigation, which is possible only with a GPS.

When you have gaps of a few miles to fly through and you have to do it accurately to one side of the gap, etc, it cannot be done (reliably) by flying precalculated wind corrected headings.

With a decent GPS it is very easy to avoid ATZs, DAs, published gliding sites, and all the other stuff.

Conventional Gear
14th May 2011, 16:38
You do bang on about it, if you are in the transponder mandatory zone all you need is DME tuned into 110.5

If it reads more than 8.0 (8.5 if you worry about slant accuracy etc) you are outside the CTR and no worries.

I like GPS but have navigated this 'Gap' many times without needing GPS

AdamFrisch
14th May 2011, 20:19
The aircraft I was flying is an old rental from Lydd Aero Club. I'm not going to spend as much as a pound getting a portable GPS when I only fly here a coupe of times a year. If it was my own aircraft, it'd be a different story. So it had to be done old school.

NigelOnDraft
14th May 2011, 21:30
Well, if you intend to do what you say, you'll have to talk to either Farnborough radar, Essex radar or Stansted to get permission to enter the transponder mandatory zone which is 'restricted airspace'. It's a Transponder Mandatory Zone, not a Radio Mandatory Zone (at least not until the Olympics :( ).

No need to talk to anyone to go thru' the TMZ, just Squawk inc. 'C'.

but this also illustrates the need for really accurate navigation, which is possible only with a GPSCurious where this is written down? Currently have no GPS. Quite happily navigate the LTN/STN gap, to N, SW, SE, TMZs, in/over/around Stapleford/Panshanger. Find looking out of window and using coloured paper thing more than adequate. Find my students in this area just staring at GPS, blindly "following" it (i.e. not using it as a "navigation" tool to plan forward track), negating lookout.

I don't disagree that a GPS is useful in certain circumstances. However, it is rarely taught as part of the nav syllabus, and as a consequence, few use it as part of a normal navigation cycle of events :ugh:

NoD

PS Re the original qu. If you do not know the airfield, then close to the ATZ might be "prudent" to give them a call. No rule to say so, but airmanship / AIRPROX board, might suggest it is good. Certain airfields, as you get familiar, might lead you not to bother next time. Alternatively, maybe just listen. Inside Stapleford ATZ is probably as safe as it gets, its circuit traffic tends to be outside :{

Conventional Gear
14th May 2011, 22:09
Quote:
Well, if you intend to do what you say, you'll have to talk to either Farnborough radar, Essex radar or Stansted to get permission to enter the transponder mandatory zone which is 'restricted airspace'.
It's a Transponder Mandatory Zone, not a Radio Mandatory Zone (at least not until the Olympics ).

No need to talk to anyone to go thru' the TMZ, just Squawk inc. 'C'.



Thanks for the correction, perhaps I was thinking of non-transponder equipped aircraft entering the zone needing permission. As is I can't find the reference that I had that stated one needed to call one of the services before entering the zone. Anyone have a reference to the correct procedure?

Mark1234
14th May 2011, 23:24
To present the alternative argument, I recall on a rather busy day trying to get into goodwood, along with umpteen other aircraft, and having been asked to report base, spending the half the downwind leg, and a good chunk of base listening to some 'warrior' giving his life story punctuated by uhmmm, err, etc, to finally announce he was passing overhead at 3000. Seriously, who cares, get off the d**n frequency.. A severe example, granted, but you get the idea. Perhaps a case for applying judgement and common sense.

IO540
15th May 2011, 06:41
It gets even better when somebody does that after calling up "Goodwood Radar" :)

chevvron
15th May 2011, 09:01
Stapleford is not FISO as Wsempson says but A/G. On LARS North or East I would tell pilots to 'keep your own separation from XXXX ATZ', which reminds the pilot he/she is approaching an active ATZ, and gives them leeway to either avoid or call for transit. Unfortunately the powers that be disagreed with this phraeology, hence 'you are approaching XXXX ATZ, what are your intentions? became the official CAP413 words.

TractorBoy
15th May 2011, 12:55
My solution is to not fly in that area

Otherwise, I would pass N of Stapleford at 1400 ft, well outside their ATZ and keeping a very good lookout (an awful lot of UK GA flies at 1000-1500ft) and getting out of there really fast.


I wouldn't recommend that TBH. That would put you slap bang in the middle of North Weald. It doesn't have an ATZ but can get extremely busy. Especially if you end up meeting one of the many formations that fly in and out, or some of the many jets based there might be operating that day. And don't forget the circuit height is 1100ft, so you'd only be a maximum of 400ft above it. At Stapleford, you could in theory be 1300ft above circuit traffic.

Overfly Stapleford and keep a listening watch on the radio. Much safer.

UV
15th May 2011, 18:26
And don't forget the circuit height is 1100ft, so you'd only be a maximum of 400ft above it.

Technically, that would put you inside Stansted's airspace (1500 feet and above)! In reality it's 300 feet seperation.
However, dont forget jet circuit traffic at NW flies at 1000 feet AAL (1300 QNH) so your seperation form them is only 100 feet!

rkgpilot
15th May 2011, 19:45
Even safer to get Class D zone transit and have up to 2500' available.

Anybody tried or done this?

TractorBoy
15th May 2011, 20:27
Technically, that would put you inside Stansted's airspace (1500 feet and above)! In reality it's 300 feet seperation.
However, dont forget jet circuit traffic at NW flies at 1000 feet AAL (1300 QNH) so your seperation form them is only 100 feet!

OK - I didn't want to put maximum of 399ft!

Didn't know jets are 1000ft AAL at NW though. And I've been there 2 years !

Golf-Mike-Mike
15th May 2011, 20:39
Hi Adam, I've flown over or close to Stapleford many times and do usually transfer to Stapleford Radio - particularly if Farnborough suggest it, as they may have noticed radar traces in the area with no altitude readouts. On a "Basic Service", Stapleford will generally confirm their QNH, runway in use and any known circuit, joining or over-flying traffic. I have never found them anything but helpful and indeed grateful for your call when you transfer back to Farnborough, as you're helping them maintain awareness of what you're up to. As others have said, it's good airmanship to keep others aware of your whereabouts and intentions and since the local traffic will probably be on 122.8 and not a Farnborough frequency, you get the information first-hand and can visualise any potential conflicts. In practice I fly at 2300ft, 2-3nm to the south of Stapleford (using DME from the LAM VOR), which avoids any of the North Weald / 1500ft stuff mentioned elsewhere, keeps you just north of the London City control area, and is also outside the 2nm radius of Stapleford's ATZ as well as being above it.

soaringhigh650
16th May 2011, 17:01
General rule of thumb:

Unless instructed otherwise by ATC, talk to the facility for the area that you are currently in, or about to go in

If you follow this rule you can't go too far wrong. ;)

NigelOnDraft
16th May 2011, 17:38
Didn't know jets are 1000ft AAL at NW though. And I've been there 2 years !I instruct on the JPs at NW. Yes - the circuit is supposed to be at 1000'. But they students are working hard, and anything from 800' to 1180' might be encountered :rolleyes:

NoD

UV
16th May 2011, 18:39
OK - I didn't want to put maximum of 399ft!

I have recalculated it and the seperation is actually...1499 ft - 321ft (elevation) -800ft (Circuit height) = 378ft.

That was not a serious comment btw!!

Didn't know jets are 1000ft AAL at NW though. And I've been there 2 years !

Come and visit us in the Tower one day, we have tea and coffee and hardly ever get a visitor!

Even safer to get Class D zone transit and have up to 2500' available.

Anybody tried or done this?

Good idea, and Yes I've done it many times in the past, but not recently.

TractorBoy
16th May 2011, 18:41
Come and visit us in the Tower one day, we have tea and coffee and hardly ever get a visitor!



I'll take you up on that. I've always wanted to visit the tower at NW but wasn't too sure how accessible it was.

DeeCee
17th May 2011, 09:33
To answer the original question.............when I flew from Stapleford it was usual to do a downwind join at 1200'. The safest place to cross would be across the middle at 2200' because other aircraft joining would be quite a bit lower over the top of the airfield whatever the runway and direction of approach.

I suggest that it would be good practise to call and let them know, thereby letting other people know at the same time. Instructors particularly are used listening out for that sort of message and hopefully anyone else crossing LAM would be listening out as well.

I don't think that the possibility of hearing a gruff response should put you off - it can't be as gruff now as it was when I was there!

Morris542
17th May 2011, 11:22
On a "Basic Service", Stapleford will generally confirm their QNH, runway in use and any known circuit, joining or over-flying traffic


Just a quick off-topic question to clarify something. Stapleford are A/G so are not able to give a Basic Serice, is that right? I fly from a busy A/G airfield in the South East and have never heard any type of service given (although one chap once asked for a Traffic Service!).

Conventional Gear
17th May 2011, 12:08
Just a quick off-topic question to clarify something. Stapleford are A/G so are not able to give a Basic Serice, is that right? I fly from a busy A/G airfield in the South East and have never heard any type of service given (although one chap once asked for a Traffic Service!).

yep that is right, you are not getting a 'service' ever from an A/G airfield.

flyme273
17th May 2011, 16:14
Concur with IO540. Better to stay with Farnborough, who can provide some type of service. Hopefully their radar screens have conflict software. Calling Stapleford only blocks their frequency and serves to distract attention.

In any event what would Stapleford ATC reply say on a busy day, "6 in circuit, 8 joining and traffic in transit height unknown"? Not much help.

flyme.

ShyTorque
17th May 2011, 20:46
There is no ATC at an A/G station.

But I wouldn't fly through the overhead of any airfield at that relatively low altitude without at least announcing my presence on the frequency.

Jan Olieslagers
17th May 2011, 20:50
... and apart from presence on the frequency (which might be obvious to a good listener) one could even announce being in their whereabouts...?

bad bear
17th May 2011, 21:57
I just cant get my head round some pilots need to use the radio so much. Every time some one is looking in to change the frequency on their radio they are not looking out. I would only dial up the frequency if I was thinking I might have to land or might need to call for a transit. Apart from that I would prefer to be on a frequency that has radar or simply look out.
bb

ShyTorque
17th May 2011, 22:24
The ones that worry me most are the ones who rely on so-called lookout but have little understanding of the limitations of human eyesight in an aviation context.

MichaelJP59
18th May 2011, 09:26
Seems to me two competing arguments;

1) Call the airfield to let them know you're transiting.
- Risk is you're heads-down switching frequencies, also you're no longer getting wider traffic info from LARS.

2) Stay with the LARS frequency.
- Risk is airfield traffic doesn't know you're transiting. Also you don't know any special airfield activity.

Which risk is higher? Very difficult to say.. especially in the case referred to with North Weald so close by.

DeeCee
18th May 2011, 10:30
Competing arguments yes, but this is a very busy corner for traffic going around London using LAM (which is on the airfield for those that don't know). A call might alert sombody doing the same thing as you.

Sorry chaps I cannot understand why you would not call, and as for selecting the frequency, this could be one button push.

Maybe some of you are not familiar with this area. It's very busy with lots of controlled airspace and I would certainly use the radio as much as necessary to let appropriate stations know my intentions.

hippo123
31st Aug 2014, 07:33
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but would it be appropriate / correct to "request basic service" from Stapleford in this situation? I have heard it done at this and other A/G aerodromes before and have wondered about this.

It does appear to provide a useful shorthand for "uh, hello, I'm going to be overflying your aerodrome just above the limits of your ATZ and would like to let you know I'm here, and also would like to know who else is in the vicinity".

EDIT - Meant to quote the following, but don't appear to be able to / know how to:

Quote:
On a "Basic Service", Stapleford will generally confirm their QNH, runway in use and any known circuit, joining or over-flying traffic

Just a quick off-topic question to clarify something. Stapleford are A/G so are not able to give a Basic Serice, is that right? I fly from a busy A/G airfield in the South East and have never heard any type of service given (although one chap once asked for a Traffic Service!).

dagowly
31st Aug 2014, 08:34
It is, for all intensive purposes, a basic service. It's in the name. As it doesn't have to be surveillance derived they can provide it. A lot of military ranges are A/G and provide A basic service.

chevvron
31st Aug 2014, 09:57
Basic Service is an air traffic service. A/G is not an air traffic service unit and A/G operators are not qualified to provide full 'basic service', however they will usually pass information on known traffic to enable pilots to decide an appropriate course of action. If the A/G airfield is licensed, you must establish 2 - way contact in order to penetrate the atz and I would suggest also if you are passing within say 1,000ft over the atz 'just in case' as people may sometimes do aeros overhead the airfield above the atz (they used to at Popham f'rinstance)

hippo123
31st Aug 2014, 13:50
chevvron / dagowly - thanks for your replies.

I realise I'm being a tad anal about this, but my query is specifically about precise RT phraseology.

My question should have been: Is the phrase "request basic service" (spoken over the radio) appropriate in this particular situation?

If it's not, then what would be the appropriate phrase to request that they...

"pass information on known traffic to enable pilots to decide an appropriate course of action"

along with QNH, field in use, etc.

(as they do at AFIS aerodromes when someone "requests basic service" from them).

tmmorris
31st Aug 2014, 16:04
I'd suggest 'G-ABCD is a PA28 transitting through the overhead at 2500ft, estimate overhead time 55, request QNH and any known traffic'

That's not asking for a service they can't provide, it enables them and anyone working that frequency to anticipate your arrival (and let you know if they are doing anything which might be a problem e.g. aeros), and gives you a precise QNH so you are where you say you are.

phiggsbroadband
31st Aug 2014, 20:04
It is also prudent to call up the A/G operator say 2-3 minutes before going through their overhead... At 120kts that is at a range of 4-6nm. The LARS station was probably hinting that now would have been the best time for the call.


Given the time taken for circuit traffic to pass their calls, you may have been able to hear up to 5 planes in the circuit.


A further wait of 2-3 minutes once through the overhead would give you details of arriving and departing traffic.


.

piperarcher
31st Aug 2014, 21:23
As what tmmorris said. You can't request anything from an AG, only tell them what you are doing and see if they tell you anything. You can ask anything you want like other known traffic but different aerodromes will offer different levels of helpfulness, if indeed any response - they don't have to. Once or twice I bothered to contact Stapleford then re-establish contact with Stapleford but as Peter said in one of the original replies, what can they officially tell you?

I fly the track between Stapleford and LCY a lot, and with farnborough I either tell them I'm routing around the south, or they will figure it out anyhow. If you don't have a GPS, make sure you have positively identified Stapleford and are sufficiently south enough to not be in their zone, but not so far south you've busted LCY.

soaringhigh650
31st Aug 2014, 22:03
If it's not, then what would be the appropriate phrase to request that

The matter is moot.

For pretty much all the reasons given by IO540 at the beginning of this thread, there is absolutely no reason to waste time of everyone calling up any facility unless you want to go into it, or they are qualified and appropriately equipped to provide you with traffic advisories outside their boundary.

Either keep quiet or remain on flight following / flight information services if you so wish, keep a good lookout and enjoy flying.

Don't knock on every man's door for the sake of knocking or you'll overload the system.

robin
1st Sep 2014, 09:47
Hmm

When I return to Elstree from the SW I tend to go overhead Wycombe, where possible.

Normally Wycombe Tower are happy for me to do that, but the last couple of times, they have said go round the ATZ not over, as gliding was in progress.

No skin off my nose to edge round the ATZ, but it is quite a squeeze between the TMA and Wycombe. I know I'd be in my rights to go overhead the ATZ, but what do others do?

500 above
1st Sep 2014, 10:10
No skin off my nose to edge round the ATZ, but it is quite a squeeze between the TMA and Wycombe. I know I'd be in my rights to go overhead the ATZ, but what do others do?

Not really a squeeze. There are plenty of good landmarks to use.

Only a numpty would fly overhead an active gliding site, although you may be "in your rights to go overhead the ATZ".

chevvron
1st Sep 2014, 10:40
It is a squeeze between the TMA and Wycombe ATZ, but that's overhead the airfield. Another squeeze is to the east between the ATZ and the Heathrow CTR, which is what I would guess Robin actually means!!
Roll on the 18th when the classification changes.

500 above
1st Sep 2014, 10:54
The East of the ATZ is what I am referring to. Not a squeeze at all.

It is a worry that people would want to route overhead an active gliding field none the less. What next? Just route overhead the departure end of a busy biz jet airport above ATZ height without comms? Go through a localiser to a busy GA field - aka G-EYES accident (in which I lost a good friend in a mid-air) Safety is our prime concern guys, let's use all the tools we have in our inventory to maximise this.

All the above may well be legal, but it does not make it safe or professional.

flyme273
1st Sep 2014, 11:04
I'm with IO540 and wsmempson on this one.

Remain with Farnborough radar. They have the ability to notify a transponder conflict (equipment software is probably auto detecting). Eyes outside 100%.

Stapleford can't provide any more than general info - probably limited to circuit info. All talking and eyes inside to change frequency. By the time radio calls are made and returned a good few "unprotected" miles have passed.

flyme.

chevvron
1st Sep 2014, 13:25
When I did Farnborough LARS, I liked to say 'keep your own separation from XXXX atz'. That leaves the decision entirely up to the pilot.

PA28181
1st Sep 2014, 13:52
It is a squeeze between the TMA and Wycombe ATZ

More than a "Squeeze" if going south with Wycombe at 520' it's one or the other.......

GCRSR
1st Sep 2014, 20:30
For me this thread highlights a serious issue... There are a multitude of different opinions about the "correct" way to overfly aerodromes and transit key routes in some of the busiest GA corridors (PINCHPOINTS such as Wycombe, Stapleford, Blackbush) around London.

Would it not make sense to agree some VFR routes that kept eastbound and westbound or northbound and southbound traffic separated with agreed heights and radio frequencies?

I for one find it incredibly frustrating that there is so much regulation in the name of safety which focussed on the small issues and yet big picture stuff does not get addressed.

Given that it is almost essential to navigate with GPS around the London area to stay legal it should not be overly complex to create some routes with standard waypoints that would minimise head-on risks.

In the last year I have found myself taking avoiding action from opposite direction traffic at the same altitude when routing north around Wodley and South near Stokenchurch and on both occasions whilst receiving basic service from Farnborough West.

Creation of traffic lanes like the ship traffic separation in the channel between Dover and Calais would surely help.

Heston
2nd Sep 2014, 06:50
"Given that it is almost essential to navigate with GPS around the London area to stay legal it should not be overly complex to create some routes with standard waypoints that would minimise head-on risks."

Oh yeah, what a great idea! But let's go one better than that and just make it all controlled airspace, mode S mandatory. Then we can all play at being airliners.

172510
2nd Sep 2014, 08:22
Stapleford is quite a choke point vertically, with the ATZ up to 2185 and then the LTMA at 2500, so any other traffic is prob90 at 2300 as well.

Just some hair splitting:

The accuracy of an altimeter (cf ICAO Doc 8168) should be +/-60ft
So I should make sure to fly below 2440 and above 2245 to make sure I'm out of the ATZ and out of the LTMA.
Let's say I choose to fly in the middle, at 2342.5 ft
I have to keep my altitude within +/- 97.5ft, which is more accurate than PPL standards (+/- 150ft) and even CPL standards (+/- 100ft).


I think that the floor of the LTMA is on the London QNH. To avoid the ATZ I should fly over 2185 on Stapleford QNH. Meaning that if Stapleford QNH is lower than London QNH, I have to keep my altitude even more accurately (27ft per mb).

soaringhigh650
2nd Sep 2014, 09:53
should not be overly complex to create some routes with standard waypoints that would minimise head-on risks.

Creating standard routes does not minimize head on risks. It would actually increase collision risk slightly by bunching airplanes together. So having some randomness is good.

But there are suggested routes which you can fly which nicely avoids controlled airspace if you don't wanna transition through it.

See: CAA VFR - Video Guides 692-1 (http://vfr.airspacesafety.com/content/)

Talkdownman
2nd Sep 2014, 11:23
The East of the ATZ is what I am referring to. Not a squeeze at all
A 'standard route' of mine…the BNN222R…

Meaning that if Stapleford QNH is lower than London QNH, I have to keep my altitude even more accurately (27ft per mb)
UK IAIP ENR 1.7-2 Paras 5.1.6, 5.2.2.1 and 5.3.3
It may be assumed that for aerodromes beneath the same TMA or CTA the differences in their QNH values are insignificant.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Sep 2014, 11:29
Just some hair splitting:

The accuracy of an altimeter (cf ICAO Doc 8168) should be +/-60ft
So I should make sure to fly below 2440 and above 2245 to make sure I'm out of the ATZ and out of the LTMA.
Let's say I choose to fly in the middle, at 2342.5 ft
I have to keep my altitude within +/- 97.5ft, which is more accurate than PPL standards (+/- 150ft) and even CPL standards (+/- 100ft).
I once got asked for my altitude as I was flying along beneath 2,500' airspace.


"2,480' it says here," I said.


"OK, fine, thanks," said the controller.

Zulu Alpha
2nd Sep 2014, 17:00
It was probably Farnborough just making sure you knew where you were. Then, if you descended slightly and infringed, they could say they had warned you.

I would have thought that Farnborough could see any conflicting traffic better then the A/G radio, so stay with them.

hippo123
3rd Sep 2014, 01:40
Only a numpty would fly overhead an active gliding site, although you may be "in your rights to go overhead the ATZ".500 above - Please could you (or anyone else) kindly explain to this numpty why it is inherently more dangerous to fly above the ATZ of a glider site (non winch), than close to its edge at a lower altitude?

India Four Two
3rd Sep 2014, 02:39
I have to keep my altitude within +/- 97.5ft, which is more accurate than PPL standards (+/- 150ft) and even CPL standards (+/- 100ft).172510,

Nice analysis. You reminded me of my IR instructor: "I don't care what the standard says, I want that needle bisecting the 0!"

A very nice guy who went on to be a Transport Canada Examiner.

ChickenHouse
3rd Sep 2014, 07:04
Folks, I am amazed such a discussion got so lengthy and thought to add some to it. First, this is one of the reason I have a 2 COM configuration. If LARS tells me to call in at an airfield frequency, I do, because I assume there is something in the air they see, know or expect. Second, if I go over such a place as mentioned I always monitor the airfield frequency. Third, if the airfield I am passing over does have little traffic, I am able to follow on COM 2 what is going on and I add it to my picture of traffic. Forth, if I hear possibly conflicting traffic on the airfield frequency I give a call - usually to the aircraft, not the field. Fifth, if the airfield frequency is busy I always give a call to all stations, as THEY have to know I am up there. I had not only once a fast one departing high speed and leaving zone to the above. They are not only departing sideways, as most of the times from CTR. Departing aircraft can come from underneath you! So, there might not be a need to call in, but reasons.

Heston
3rd Sep 2014, 07:35
if I hear possibly conflicting traffic on the airfield frequency I give a call - usually to the aircraft, not the field. Fifth, if the airfield frequency is busy I always give a call to all stations, as THEY have to know I am up there

F:mad:k me! I really hope you don't do either of those. Apart from being in contravention to your licence, acting as if you know what's best for everybody else on frequency is not going to help safety at all - you're just going to really annoy people.

500 above
3rd Sep 2014, 08:01
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/467587-navigating-over-gliding-site.html

500 above - Please could you (or anyone else) kindly explain to this numpty why it is inherently more dangerous to fly above the ATZ of a glider site (non winch), than close to its edge at a lower altitude?

Hippo123, I'd have thought that the answer to your question was obvious. Have a look at the above thread.

As an ex CFI and FIC instructor, there is no way I would advocate to any of my students to fly near to an active gliding site when there are other options.

172510
3rd Sep 2014, 08:37
Who might I meet overhead the airfield above the ATZ?
1 a pilot who is passing by just like me.
If he/she is the sort of pilot who does not like calling, I won't hear of him/her on either frequency.
If he/she has a transponder, LARS will hopefully tell me if the flight paths are conflicting, Stapleford won't.
If he/she was in contact with LARS and had left them to call the airfield as she/he planned to fly overhead, chances are that LARS will tell me about it. On Stapleford frequency, I normally should ear of him/her, but not sure, he/she might have made the call just before I started to listen, A/G might be very busy, A/G might not be attended etc.
So I think that the winner is LARS in that case.
2 a pilot who is leaving or entering the circuit.
He has no reason to fly overhead above the ATZ if he is just joining or leaving.
Even an instructor who would want to practice a gliding approach from overhead would probably not fly above the ATZ.
So I can't see any reason for a pilot intending to join, leave, or stay in the vicinity of Stapleford to fly above the ATZ.

So I think I will continue to stay with LARS on com 1, and listen to Stapleford on com2.
An additional benefit is that a change of frequency is always distracting.

hippo123
3rd Sep 2014, 13:23
Navigating over a gliding site (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/467587-navigating-over-gliding-site.html)

Quote:
500 above - Please could you (or anyone else) kindly explain to this numpty why it is inherently more dangerous to fly above the ATZ of a glider site (non winch), than close to its edge at a lower altitude?

Hippo123, I'd have thought that the answer to your question was obvious. Have a look at the above thread.

As an ex CFI and FIC instructor, there is no way I would advocate to any of my students to fly near to an active gliding site when there are other options.
It most certainly isn't obvious to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question.

I had quickly gone over the thread you linked to before posting my question here; I've checked again and I don't believe it answers my question.

The only post that I thought came close to an answer, stated that (winch-launched) gliders will climb and keep on climbing directly over the field. But is this always the case? I don't know anything about glider operations.

Just stating outright that it's a bad idea, that people who do it aren't very clever, or that it's obvious why it shouldn't be done: they might be true, but these are never valid explanations for anything.

I suppose I should add that I always give gliding sites a very wide berth when I'm out and about, in case any glider pilots here are starting to get worried... (if there are any of you here perhaps you could kindly answer my question).

robin
4th Sep 2014, 13:45
I certainly am very nervy when flying close to an active gliding club, esp when they are a known winch launching site

Wycombe, from my memory is aerotow only and generally they tow out to Stokenchurch and tend to operate to the west. Rarely are they to the east of the field but sometimes are circling overhead.

For me, the safest place is usually to the east although I will check to see if overhead is an option - it often is.

This doesn't apply to other gliding sites - I stay well away, having had years as a glider pilot shouting at numpty power pilots!!!

Hawk711
24th Sep 2014, 20:34
You are quite right, you don't need to speak to the aerodrome when above 2000' AAL. If you've got nothing else to do then no harm in speaking to them but when you are having to get rid of Farnborough to call them its probably easier to stay with Farn. If you've checked Notams and you know there is no aero box etc then all they are going to do is say keep a good lookout for an aircraft joining.........etc. So why not just keep a good lookout anyway and stay with Farnborough!

ChickenHouse
27th Sep 2014, 07:01
Even an instructor who would want to practice a gliding approach from overhead would probably not fly above the ATZ.

I object. In continental Europe, practice security glide landings usually according to syllabus start from 2.000 - 2.200 ft above airfield - to have a 4 minute glide at -500 ft/sec. If you have 200 ft elevation, this gives some probability for someone at 2.400 ft, not much space if you cross 2.500 ft. So, it is quite common for them to reach above the zone and yes, you have to have a lookout.

marioair
27th Sep 2014, 14:07
Reading this thread has re-confirmed three points for me:

1) most a/c have two com boxes. Use them. LARS as primary, a/g listening.
2) for the sake of a few minutes, route to the south of stapleford (or if you're feeling lucky a zone crossing of stansted)
3) what a complete waste of time a basic (any non radar derived) service is - in the busy areas of the south east. Ie I sometimes feel you get the same utility from talking to an a/g as you do from a lars BS !!

UV
27th Sep 2014, 16:46
3) what a complete waste of time a basic (any non radar derived) service is - in the busy areas of the south east. Ie I sometimes feel you get the same utility from talking to an a/g as you do from a lars BS !!
You do...and often more detailed relevant traffic info at the landing aerodrome!