Isn't it funny that pilots will happily fork out £500 on an electronic piece of kit that warns the pilot every time it is turned on that it does not do what the pilot bought it for. Then they spend a few hundred pounds each year to keep the information in that piece of equipment up to date.
Ask that pilot to pay £1 in route charges for a VFR flight that obtains LARS and zone transit and all hell breaks loose.
On a more serious note. If UK controllers treated class D as the Class D described in the ICAO documents and not as their own unclassified piece of restricted/prohibited airspace that would mean that more transit flights could be accepted without impinging on the IFR flights. That would place many of the pilots trying to fly past the zone with .000001nm lateral separation within the system and make them known traffic.
The "duty of care" argument oft posed against the above is utter rubbish. How can one have a duty to do something that the written procedures clearly say you do not have to do? - Are the written procedures wrong?
I note that Edinburgh is expanding it's class D and the Class E is disapearing. What impact will that have on infringements in that area? - Will Edinburgh give transits to every VFR flight that wants to pass through the airspace that they have safely passed through without clearance for years? Why not? since the separation standards are still the same - none!
A number of posters including myself have proposed the removal of both QFE and the RPS system. Since no one has objected then perhaps that is one area in which those that debate here agree and should be taken on board.
Regards,
DFC