Better access to Class D airspace

[bluskis]

The Directorate of Airspace Policy is carring out a survey of the problems encountered by GA in accessing Class D airspace.

GASCo magazine, Flight Safety have an article on the project, and a form CHIRPS style for pilots to report instances of refusal by ATC.

Bearing in mind the large amount of D space in the SE, it is heartening to think GA may in the future be getting more assistance and the accompanying increased safety.

The point GASCo makes is that pilots should participate and make their reports if enough data is to be gathered upon which a program of changes can be based.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could reliably plan to route through Stanstead instead of weaving around to avoid infringing, and the subsequent report.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were not bottlenecked together with little help in collision avoidance.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi Bluskis,

I think matters have already improved quite considerably,

Can not argue with the squashed in a small area arguement as that is just what it is.

However have come to the conclusion that alternative and seemingly longer routings are usually the better bet and in real terms make very little difference to time flown on a particular sector.

As I am always a bit slow in the uptake and at times have known to be argumentative (so I have been told) it did once cost me a bottle of wine. Have a look and plan some alternative routes. You will be amazed by the minute difference on any decent size tour.

For example. Flew in a Cirrus to Holland the other week. Planned to go direct EGBT BPK LAM DVR etc rather than EGBT BNN LAM.

Helpful controller said yup can expect clearance so proceed to just West of M1. In a hold there for 4 orbits then just Norf of the field for another 3 and by the time I could cross after all the approaching traffic had landed got cleared must have 'lost' 20 mins. No problem with ATCer as very helpful and I got what I asked, unfortunately very busy.

I had not done my homework properly and looked at the time gained.

Have a guess!

Total trip duration 1hr 37

Time difference: 10 mins? 5 mins? 1 min? 47 seconds?

Yup you guessed it wrong!

It is 47 seconds.

Another example and for something may be more typical GA middle of the road.

LFAT to Leicester

RTE LFAT DVR EGS EGBG 1 hour 35 mins

RTE LFAT DCT EGBG 1 hour and 31 mins

All of 4 mins.

Am all in favour of having better services and better access to pieces of airspace when it makes sense, but not just for arguments sake.

I would value having access to some lower level airways for XC IMC flying more than just access to bits of class D.

But everyone has their own preferences

FD

[englishal]

FD, couldn't agree more with the Class D for IMC flying thing.

Another option they could employ is to overlay the Class D zones with Class E airspace, where no clearance is required for VFR flight. This'd guarantee VFR traffic to transit all class D zones. may mean raising some of the overlaying class A, but hey, its only a chart and some ink right :D

Cheers
EA:D

[vintage ATCO]

Class E airspace in the south east will not work, it is too busy.

VA

[BEagle]

I once heard that there was actually a push by the air-traffickers to introduce Class C instead of Class D in parts of SE UK. Is this still true?

While we are at it - why do places like Cranwell still need a MATZ when Humberside and Exeter merely have ATZs? In fact why are MATZs needed at all these days with so few military ac in the UK?

If you call Benson, you are frequently told, quite tersely, "Remain outside 3 miles from the aerodrome". The ATZ is 2.5 miles, the MATZ is 5. So where does 3 come from? The next time I get such abrupt treatment I may well ask for their QFE and then route overhead at 2001' a.a.l..........................probably with Mode C turned off within 2.51 miles of the aerodrome reference point!

[RodgerF]

A few observations on this thread.

Excellent analysis by FlyingDutch on how little difference going round CAS makes. In some cases like Andrewsfield, going South initially is the only option since you are so close to the edge of the Stansted CTR.

Beagle

Benson may have been dealing with intense gliding operations. Terseness on the radio is a fact of life; you and I both know we should not let it affect us.
Agree with overflying ATZs, 500 feet above might be safer. I often do it particularly when the frequency is busy, e.g. Cranfield. As was mentioned in another post, when the frequencies are busy it is normally good VMC.

MATZs are an anomaly not being CAS. However activity can increase rapidly at military aerodromes at time of tension, or for exercises. In the Lakenheath triangle near where I operate the recent Iraq situation meant that there was a significant increase in the numbers of heavy aircraft operating out of these 3 fields. Access to the CMATZ was not refused, but Lakenheath Radar had a better picture of traffic nearby.

IMHO to get the best chance of access to CAS it is necessary to sound competent on the radio. How many pilots ask for crossing clearance on their initial call? If you don't and get asked to standby, then get refused more time is wasted. Asking after providing your life story also makes the controllers disinclined to help. Asking to cross VFR in poor vis is not likely to be approved, if entry/exit lanes exist this might be OK, if you sound in control. Asking to cross a corner of the zone is pointless, as FlyingDutch says the saving in time will be insignificant. I read somewhere (possibly here) that a good idea is to plan avoiding CAS. If you get it then Plan B, take the shortcut and the saving.

[IanSeager]

My main issue with class D is that it *appears* to be treated differently depending on which bit of class D you are talking about. It is fairly rare to get a transit refused by Lyneham, and equally rare to get one approved by Manchester. Solent and Stansted can be variable and Birmingham have even NOTAMed the fact that it is unlikely.

Some class D seems to be treated like class A, with the Heathrow TMA treated almost as if it were class C (Which is a good thing IMHO)

I'd guess (Or hope) that it is down to controller workload, but perhaps in some areas it becomes a habit?

Ian

[AlanM]

On Thames and SVFR we have an odd situation where we have a Class A zone (LCTR) and the Class D zone of London City.

In my opinion, making the LCTR Class D would be much easier for us.

It seems odd that we create VFR Free lanes around the South west corner for Royal Ascot (Which don't even talk to 119.9) and then the day after reverts back to only one aircraft routeing in the west side of the zone (BUR-ASCOT) at any one time.

Make the whole lot Class D and be done with it. Would also make it easier for all the police/medevac helis that work in the zone.

As for as not getting transits - well - that is just a simple fact of life. I always give a transit when I can, but at the end of the day our manuals dictate that the priority is our IFR traffic. Sadly you just have to fit in. I was too busy to even get back to the few wanting to cross LCY the other day - just depends on your timings. Then yesterday I had 4 VFR transits and 2 helicopters in the zone at the same time as in inbound. We have to pass traff info of course to everyone, which is time consuming. Also, I have seen an IFR inbound quite legitimately request avoiding action and broken off the approach against a VFR transit. This caused the controller no end of hassle and he had to feed him back in the sequence and he went from No 1 to No 4! He then whinged and I have to admit I thought "Why bother trying to get a VFR transit across when you are busy.

Without stirring up a hornets nest, they are the ones who (largely) pay for that airports ATC. Contributions would be greatly received...!;)

Ian is probably correct, some units, and some staff within, give "extra" if you like and some offer little or no help. However, you can't be too surprised that Lyneham with it's intensity of traffic is easier to cross than Southampton or Manchester, surely?

I agree with VA - Class E on top of the D stuff would never under the TMA. It's just too busy.

[bluskis]

Sorry to say I think you are mostly missing the point. Or perhaps I am.

I read the article to mean the powers to be have decided that class D should be readily available, and that lack of staff should not be the reason for restricting traffic.

Perhaps this is an attempt to ensure privatisation has not reduced staff to the sort of level that happened in Zurich.

I am concious of the workloads experienced, and on the occasions when I have thought it safer to request transit of LHR or CITY, my request has always been granted. Appreciated and Thanks.

Dutch
You are correct with respect to time, but not with respect to safety.

The NW corner of London CTR, and the easterly route DET LAM are very busy areas, as is the corridor BPK to North.

While the London ATC units usually give a pretty good FIS and RIS, Luton and Stanstead do not appear to have the same capability, outside the zone, so I can understand why they don't want you inside their zones. Perhaps they are not staffed to an appropriate level.

[AlanM]

bluskis

I see yr point - and you are probably right in as much as it is about staffing numbers.

But who is to pay for these extra staff? Maybe it is time that the CAA/DAP bit the bullet and set up and paid for a "London" LARS service?

I would guess that most units are staffed adequately for the task of providing their own in and outbounds (IFR and VFR) and little more.

As it is, Thames area of operation for VFR traffic is officially described as within the M25 as for west as the north-south line through Battersea EXCLUDING the 10 mile radius of Biggin. It doesn't take much to see that there isn't much airspace outside CAS in that bit! Still - I regularly give a service as far as BNN and as far south as MAY and DET - but ALL SUBJECT to CITY and BIGGIN IFR traffic.

My point is that we do more than we have to already. I personally believe that the lack of LARS for such a busy piece of airspace as under the LTMA, is simply shocking. You can no longer expect busy units to work such traffic.

I think we are a long way off a Zurich scenario.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Ah Bluskis

But that is a completely different matter altogether!

I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying here. This has been a bone of contention between moi and some of my mates in high places (that is they are controllers ;) )

I think a lot could be done to make things better and safer and as AlanM suggests a London LARS service would be a good thing too!

In the end I think it boils down to money and may be sometimes a can do attitude, but am sure that most controllers would be happy to accomodate competent pilots in their airspace if capacity allowed.

FD

<soapbox> Another one to throw in is the inability of some not so large or busy regional (pardon me 'international') airfields to cope with some GA traffic flying in and out at a reasonable price. Those who say that it can't be done should have a look at places like Bordeaux and Geneva.</soap box>

[AlanM]

bluskis....

While the London ATC units usually give a pretty good FIS and RIS

Whats a bad FIS then?!!!!! The only thing lower than that is a FAS.

[bluskis]

Alan

I guess I meant an FIS with good conflicting traffic added, a bit like a RIS but without saying so. London Radar, Thames, Lille, Geneva, and Seine would be examples of this

A bad FIS is what you get from PARIS, and nearly as useless, what you get over the 'oggin from France on a sunny weekend talking to London FIS.

[Keef]

Having visited LTCC and Swanwick and seen how busy these folks are, I can understand the reluctance to let slow-moving VFR flights through at peak times.

I really cannot complain about the attitude of any of the controllers I've spoken to.

On every occasion I've asked for a transit of Stansted or Luton in the past couple of years, I've been given it - and very helpful service too.

Thames Radar have always been courteous and helpful - although on occasions they've refused service because of volume of traffic when I've been outside their zone.

I think the key is in FD's post - don't bother to ask for a "corner-cutting" that will only save you a few minutes.

And: listen first, and if it's extremely busy, don't even bother to call. When you do call, know what to say and do it briskly and clearly (and no more than the information the controller needs).

If you want a transit that will save you a LOT of complicated routing, and then if it's refused with no apparent reason, fill in that CHIRP-like form and send it off. I don't think you'll get to send in many.

I have some personal beefs (don't we all!), like why UK airways are almost exclusively Class A , particularly that absurd airway from Southampton to the Channel Islands. There must be all of one aircraft regularly using the airspace between FL035 and FL100 on that route, so all the VFR flights have to wind their way round Cherbourg (and risk getting caught up in the latest French ZITs and ZOTs). But those aren't down to the ATCOs.

[BEagle]

'Intense gliding' at Benson? Oh purrrleees - just a few ATC cadets in Grobs. Hardly 'intense'..........

[AlanM]

BEagle - well said

Benson (zzzzzzz) has never been intense!

Keef - you are quite correct in every respect sir - and my short grumpy chum XXXXXXX would agree!:)

bluskis - Oh that type of FIS..... with radar derived traffic info (aka Mini-RIS!!!)

We do what we can. And of course, if you are new to an area phone before you get airborne and say what you would like to do and we can tell you what to expect.

It's all about us educating each other to make it all easier.

[Timothy]

If you read my article in the February edition of Flyer magazine (should be hitting the newsagents about now and be delivered to subcribers over the next few days) you will see that I have not only written a bit about penetrating Zones (mostly Class D) but also did a little experiment to test some of the theories about when and why access is refused.

Let me know what you think,

Will

[DOC.400]

"IMHO to get the best chance of access to CAS it is necessary to sound competent on the radio. How many pilots ask for crossing clearance on their initial call?"

Abso -tell'em what you want and you'll usually get it, and try not to 'er'!!

DOC

[Timothy]

and try not to 'er'This is one of the issues I have tried to address in the article.

Will