Dear
CM, if its an argument you want (shame really)...
total ignorance of IFR operations
same to you with knobs on mate!
other airspace users who have as much (if not more valid) reason to be in a particular piece of airspace.
So who gets to decide who has a more valid reason to be in a particular piece of airspace? In Class G, it 'aint you mate! Of course, the charts highlight primary approach paths in Class G (i.e. "<<<<<" symbol on the chart) and in some instances there are holds in class G too, e.g. Alkin near Biggin Hill: as good citizens we should avoid these as part of normal VFR airmanship. I would hope that my fellow VFR pilots do so too, of course.
Class 'G' is not "see and avoid", VFR is "see and avoid"
Your semantic argument is fatuous and besides the point. I think you know what I mean...
"Class G is uncontrolled and pilots are responsible for providing separation between flights, whatever flight rules they are following", at least according to the current edition GASIL on pp. 12 which I quote. Surely this is not news to most people?
if that means breaking off the approach then that's what happens
Yes. And if this is a problem operationally, perhaps the airfield operator should lobby for more controlled airspace locally to provide more adequate protection. AOPA (sh/w)ould be consulted, and life would move on. Otherwise, it is what it says on the box: Class G.
Do you think it's fair ...
Who said its fair? Are you suggesting it would be fairer for VFR pilots in Class G to go somewhere else? Where? Is it "fair" on my fuel burn or my time? Happily we don't have to worry about what is fair, we just have to fly within the rules and exercise good airmanship. For the avoidance of doubt, that should include (as above) avoiding approach and holding areas, or request an information service (if offered/available) from the APP provider in that vicinity to enable good neighbourly coordination. But you seem to hanker for a separate pice of sky when it hasn't been allocated? How is that "fair"?
Sticking your head in the sand were you?
Que?
A bit of decent planning on the part of the organisers / DAP could have brought them in on a route a lot safer
Maybe so - perhaps you could promulgate your proposed safer route? How have you coped druing previous events? Do you think it would be safer for no route to be suggested, I think I might agree with that. But your sweeping anti-VFR comments above are quite something else.
Anyway, don't worry: I won't be in your airspace that day!
Cheers,
Andy
