Originally Posted by
Chilli Monster
It's necessary to remember why the airspace was introduced in the first place (known traffic environment) and as such there will be times when safety requires a judgement call that may not enable a transit. A more balanced view would be that the service provider
attempts to allow free and equal access, bearing in mind that it is better to slightly re-route a GA transit rather than having 200 tonnes of kerosene burner going around
I am in two minds about this whole issue. On the one hand I like to think that GA should be treated the same as CA... but on the other hand I understand if I in my itsy bitsy DR400 get asked to route slighty left or right of a direct transit to make separation with a big 747 on final easier then thats the way it is, especially as many point out, because CA pays. I do, however, wonder if a 747 gets given a higher priority than a 737 on the same size issues? Or if the higher payer gets priority, ie does Ryanair with its "Low cost deal" get shunted back in the line in favour of full paying Lufthansa or BA??
I have been held both in the UK and France at regional airports with only a few commercial flights per day due to the landing 737 (ie its about 5-10mins away), and it only really bothers me if I get charged a fortune for the landing and parking - guess which country? As for being denied controlled airspace access, its never happened in France yet, but on my infrequent visits to the UK, it has happened for about 50% of the time....
Whats the betting that this new peice of airspace, if approved, will be one of those where everything stops for the commercial movement of the day, and where an attitude, of 'this is MY airspace' will prevail for transits?
Cynical.....moi??? Regards, SD..