Class D airspace

[surface wind]

There is a bit of a debate around surrounding class d airspace. I wanted to ask the opinion of the drivers as to what they prefer.

Is it

1. Positive seperation from VFR traffic provided by ATC?

or

2. Traffic info and let you get on with it?


What is it really like when you depart? Too much to worry about in the cockpit on departure or is it sooooo boring you like the challenge ?

Surface Wind
:D :D

[Crotalus]

congrats SW !!!! can we have your leave back??

but beware a lot of the traffic is designed to be hard to see.....and I personally like to have that little bit of control!!

[Spitoon]

Speaking as a controller, I didn't realise there were options.

Class D = (a) separate IFR flights from other IFR flights, (b) pass traffic information to IFR flights on VFR flights and give traffic avoidance advice if requested, and (c) pass traffic information to VFR flights on IFR flights and other VFR flights.

Yes, OK, these are the minimum services to be provided but it's always been good practice to arrange VFR clearances so that they don't turn out to be traffic to the IFR flights.

If by 'positive separation' you mean 'standard separation' then, firstly, how will you ensure that it happens and, secondly why bother (and set a precedent that wont be followed elsewhere)!

There are lots of ways to deal with this 'route to pass east of the threshold rw08', 'do you see the XXX, jolly good, arrange your flight to pass behind him', follow the coast and advise if you wish to climb above 1500ft' - that one worked for me by keeping the VFR traffic out of the way. Like I say lots of ways to manage a bit of Class D without scaring the bejabers out of IFR pilots in the area and without having continually pass traffic info.

If it's class D I'm assuming it's not so busy that you cant manage the VFR traffic (politely) and fit the IFR through the gaps!

Aw, rats, now I've gone and given another option.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Class D at EGGD (BRS) which is a good mix of Rotary, Pax Jet and GA seems to work well.

Controllers seem quite relaxed about the rare TCAS queries. It all seems to work well enough with highly competent controllers - which is what we enjoy.

WWW

[Standard Noise]

mmm, it's that "procedural radar" thing again, only now, they want to apply it to VFR as well!!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[sharpshot]

Whatever the rule book says or the interpretation of it, life is changing in busy Class D airspace.

If you have not seen it, take a look at NATS website, specifically:
http//www.ais.org.uk/notices/EGBB.txt

I guess you just have to accept that there are times when a controllers workload is so high that you cannot afford the x-country PPL making that less than concise initial call!!

I just hope LTN does not follow suit, because it's gonna be a long re-route around the whole TMA going in any direction. Trust us guys - we can navigate via your thresholds accurately and keep the R/T brief:) :) :)

[bookworm]

My recent experience of Birmingham was far from the doom and gloom that the notice presents. On a SE-NW trip and the return, I got a radar service and VFR zone transit straight over EGBB without any difficulty. A thoroughly helpful and professional service -- thanks guys.

[1261]

We are a bit daft about this sort of thing in the UK; at our place we provide separation (as if we were in class C airspace) for IFR against VFR. I remember querying this when I was doing my radar validation (in the context of IFR traffic descending on a visual approach with VFR traffic in the way) and being told that just passing traffic information was "not really on". A positive restriction to maintain separation is [almost] always given.

I'd be interested to hear what goes on elsewhere as I've only ever worked at one unit.....

[Spitoon]

1261, out of interest when you say you provide separation do you mean standard IFR separation or do you just make sure they won't get near enough to cause the pilots concern or to collide? And who said that traffic info wasn't on?

[1261]

No, I don't mean standard IFR separation: however, at places I've visited overseas (Dublin and Schiphol, for example) they provide the same separations in class C airspace as we do in class D - i.e. to ENSURE that they don't hit each other without worrying about 3Nm/1000ft. This is normally done with level restrictions in areas where conflicts are likely to arise.

And as far as "who", almost everyone on the unit! The consensus of opinion seemed to be that this was a "duty of care" issue; allowing an A330 to descend on a visual approach when you knew that there was conflicting VFR traffic a mile ahead of him that he couldn't see (but that he didn't want avoidance advice on)......

I've since developed my own opinions on this subject, but many at my unit are very cautious about the "minimum services".

[Crotalus]

Duty of care is exactly why we will take positive action ...some "colleagues" appear to have a more cavalier manner about them altogether !! (which I suspect is the reason for SW s original post )

[Standard Noise]

Positive action or just "overcontrolling"?

Or have I joined in too soon, Crotalus? Are you talking of your own "in house" colleagues? OOOH, dissent in the ranks......:D