NorthSouth
Frankly I think this TMZ is a complete waste of time since none of the traffic in this airspace is getting a radar service, all of them are asked to squawk already, and in any case the TMA radar controllers just ignore primary-only radar contacts because they're deemed to be below controlled airspace (Scottish TMA is already transponder-mandatory above 6000ft and of course all IFR traffic is squawking).
I agree. The only action needed is for the TMZ in the Scottish TMA to be lowered to 5500' in the affected area, then any traffic which transits the TMA through the area is visbile. The CAA could also give NATS a temporary dispensation to provide an SSR only service to aircraft in the TMA which penetrate the wind farm area, to get round the Eurocontrol and ICAO rules which require primary radar cover in the TMA. Infringers are a red herring since we will not take action to avoid unknown traffic unless information is recieved that an aircraft is lost or in an emergency. With a primary target, you are probably not going to know which target it is anyway, at least not positively.
gasax
Now we have one of the largest most empty pieces of CAS (see the LAA response to the last change) demanding a TMZ is an area where presently there is no transponder requirement - or much prospect of an ATC service.
There does seem to be an unpublished policy to insist on a TMZ under virtually any circumstance where radar 'might' be impaired.
It is not CAS requesting anything. It is the wind farm peoples attempt to mitigate their planning obligations with a stop gap solution. Why not demand that the wind farm company put the primary radar required in place BEFORE the farm can go operational ? It might focus them on getting it put up in double quick time and wouldn't require any change which impacts operators.
Most empty piece of CAS ? It runs at about 75% capacity for most of the day with 3 or 4 peak periods where the demand is 100% or greater. The LAA response was for a different piece of airspace and a different control authority. This airspace has inbound and outbound traffic to/from Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Prestwick operating within it, as well as TMA overflights.
If the ability to meet the legal radar requirement is impaired, as it will in this development, something else has to be done. This practically can only either be additional radar coverage or a TMZ. I would prefer the former every time.
Captain Smithy
A "paint" is a target. Movies, dafties etc. tend to use the horrendously naff term "blip" in substitution (up there with cheesy innaccurate crap like "over and out", "roger wilco" etc.)
Controllers will use the term 'return' (primary) or 'response' (SSR).
Bad Bear
Can anyone explain to me why an aeroplane at 3,499' is not a problem to the radar cover but 3,501' would be? i.e. why a cut off at 3,500'
I see no need for it to be so low either. 5000', if you want a buffer, would suffice.
NorthSouth
Because NATS wants to have radar cover extending to 2000ft below the base of controlled airspace, to be able to detect potential vertical infringers and/or provide traffic info for anyone descending out of CAS. Base of CAS here is 5500ft.
We don't have TMZs extending 2000' below all NATS CAS bases at the moment. This policy would need CAA approval and I can't find it.
Bad bear
Thanks NorthSouth. Good to know, now if the base of Controlled Airspace was raised to FL75 that would give a 2,000' buffer below and effectively retain the old base....
If the base went up 2,000' would there no longer be a need for the TTMZ?
The base is to allow traffic to descend in to Glasgow (RW05) and Prestwick (RW31) on Continous Descent Approaches. It also allows SID departures to be in CAS at the end of the SID in the event of RT Failure. Raising the base is a non runner from the ATC point of view.
Bad bear
[QUOTE]
Also worth noting that transponders are already mandatory above 6000ft in the TMA/quote]
When did this happen? Can you give link to the ACP? Does it apply to gliders and hang gliders etc?
It happened in the 1970s. The TMA was a Mandatory Transponder equippage area above 6000' way back then, as specified in the Air Navigation Order. When the Class C airspace came in at FL195 and above a few years ago, this was split up in to common constituent parts, applicable throughout the UK. There was no change to the requirement, except in name, so no ACP needed. Equippage is now covered by UK AIP GEN 1.5 Para 5.3 as mentioned. Between 6000' and FL100, equippage is covered by sub para 5.3.1 part (f)
All aircraft within United Kingdom airspace notified as a ‘Transponder Mandatory Zone’.
Note: Applies to Airspace Classes D, E, F and G as appropriate.
Between FL100 and FL195, it is covered by part (e)
All aircraft within United Kingdom airspace at and above FL 100.
and above FL195 is covered by part (a).
All aircraft within United Kingdom controlled airspace of Classification A, B and C.
.
Bad Bear
If only that was the reason. I have sat next to a controller with zero traffic within 40nm and asked how one would ask for a clearance to cross his class "D" airspace. His answer? I dont let anyone in to my airspace, neither with nor without an engine or transponder. The sky was empty.....That is the problem.
The controller is a fool. The CAA invite pilots refused a clearance to report it so that such controllers can be educated.
SAS
so all I see it as is another airspace grab by Glasgow.
As mentioned, nothing to do with Glasgow, and no CAS being established. No clearance required and no contact with ATC needed, only prior approval if operating without a transponder ... if it comes in of course.
gasax
Soaring, you need to find the previous consultation on the Glasgow CAS. The response put together by the LAA showed it to be one of the largest and emptiest pieces of controlled airspace in the UK.
But with the usual approach that seems to come from public or quango employees doing what they are paid for is the last thing they would ever want to do.
This TMZ is simply not needed, the TMA is already far too big for the amount of traffic using it.
With respect, the LAA report was not about the TMA, it was about airspace proposed for Glasgow only. The TMA regularly creaks at the seams and regularly requires Air Traffic Flow Management measures .... do you really think that is because it is too big and empty ? The need for a TMZ is a different issue from that of CAS design and operation. Let's not fall in to the trap of linking the 2, as the proposal does to some extent.
Bad Bear
Any one can sponsor a change now without incurring great costs, perhaps someone will help out by sponsoring an ACP to raise the base here by 2,000' and solve the problem?
I'm sure you'd get a few objections from NATS and the airline operators. Boot on the other foot
NorthSouth
Now, if you fly through the TMZ at 5000ft without a transponder and not speaking to anyone, the controller will still assume (this time wrongly) that you are below 3500ft in the TMZ area. But you are no threat to his traffic because it is all inside CAS at 6000 and above. So the controller's actions will be the same. Primary-only and not speaking to me = not inside, nor seeking to enter CAS, therefore not a factor.
Well actually he won't ... because he won't see you
