Changes to Scottish airspace

[Pheasant Plucker]

Thank you Easy Street for your points (and corrections).

As it's late, just a few points:

I don't think that I implied or stated that TS/DS are control services as they most certainly aren't.

My post was based on the practical application of providing area services in Class D/E/F/G

You mention that VMC requirements are more stringent, well, only if you are at or below 3000 feet and at a speed of 140kts or less; above 3000 feet the requirements are identical:

At or above FL 100:

8 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;

Below FL 100:

5 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;

I agree that if Class E was to be brought in more widely that an education campaign would be required - I'd just like to know at the moment how many Belfast Aldergrove and City operators are 'heads out' as they pass through the Class E airspace in the Belfast TMA every day!

Yes, there is nothing that explicitly prevents controllers from attempting to keep IFR traffic separated from unknown VFR traffic in Class E but by the same token I'm sure there are a fair number of things that aren't explicitly prevented in CAP493 and in unit Part 2s, however, you would be going against what is explicitly stated in the UK AIP for Class E airspace which states: 'ATC separation not provided' and 'Traffic information provided on request, as far as practicable, on IFR and other known VFR flights to enable pilots to effect own traffic avoidance and integration.' And from CAP493: 'pass traffic information as far as practicable to IFR flights on VFR flights'.

I think you could be on shaky ground if you decided 'off your own bat' and contrary to these publications to step outside these service requirements by providing a higher level of service when it wasn't required (not talking about the whole 'duty of care' thing where you think a definite risk of collision exists).
This could have unforeseen consequences where you turn your IFR traffic without him/her requesting a turn to avoid VFR traffic just as the VFR traffic turns the same way. Or you are focused on trying to provide avoiding vectors for IFR against VFR traffic and neglect a conflict between IFR traffic that should be the primary focus of your attention.

Yes, I agree that the main (only) benefit of Class E is that control of IFR traffic is mandatory but, in my 20+ years experience of providing ATSOCAs, I would say that the overwhelming majority (95+%) of IFR traffic (99.99% of public transport flights) in Class G at levels that we as a unit would provide a service too does request a Deconfliction or Traffic Service and will receive traffic information and avoiding action (if DS) on those that don't (IFR or VFR, usually military). Yes, instructions aren't mandatory even under a Deconfliction Service but I think it would be very poor airmanship not to accept those instructions if they were given to provide separation against conflicting traffic.

And Mad_Jock, for those that don't want to be 'over controlled' you still have the option of having a Traffic Service, an option you wouldn't have in Class E.

Oh! Military traffic in Class E? If it's VFR then it will treat it just the same way as Class F/G and sail straight through I would imagine - why shouldn't it?

Anyway, that was longer than intended and now I'm gubbed - goodnight!