View Full Version : Speed Restrictions in Class E

Duff Man
11th Dec 2003, 14:49
AIP ENR 1.1 p79 states that IFR and VFR below 10,000FT must not be operated at IAS greater than 250KTS (except Military) in Class E. ERSA special procedures give a 250KT limit for arrivals and departures at SY/ML/BN/CG in Class C.

Does an ATC cancellation of 250KTS below 10,000FT apply to operations in Class E airspace? This may become a reasonably significant flow problem as NAS approaches end-state of Class E above terminal Class C (or B).

Aussie Andy
11th Dec 2003, 18:17
Day one of NAS for me, four aircraft in E airspace without Mode C. I can't understand why these people aren't prosecuted - other than that its hard to track them down I guess? But can you be sure they were in the E, perhaps they were in some underlying class G? Just a thought...

BTW, I do not mean to suggest that its an excuse though... I can't think why squawking mode A alone is ever the right thing to do... (the only exception I am aware of is e.g. when underflying the Schiphol approach in the Amsterdam TMA at 1500' when you are instructed to "squawk standby" so as not to alarm the a/c on final that pass only a few hundred feet overhead. There are some other similar situations at various places in EU where this is sometimes desirable too, but in all of these cases you are directed to do so, either by ATC or by local rules).


Aussie Andy
11th Dec 2003, 18:56
if not they cannot be assumed to be when providing a RAS - they must be treated as worst case. Understood. Form the controller's point-of-view, I suppose there would eb an equivalent problem with Class C in that an a/c could be under-flying the controlled airspace without squawking, or only squawking mode A, and would not be in radio contact.

I take your point though: such a/c would be less likely to actually be in the Class C, as they may be in Class E, so presumably you would not have vectored your RAS traffic around these returns before.


11th Dec 2003, 19:19
In the past ATC could ignore the nil-mode C 'cause ATC could assume that the tracks were clear of C airspace … if they were in C they would be in contact with ATC, identified and given a clearance (even without Mode-C) ... right?

Now, VFRs are allowed to be in E without talking to ATC … and if the Mode C is off or fails … ATC have no way of knowing what level they are (as highlighted by the B737/C421 incident, where the C421 was at F175 but no mode C!)

As a result of the B737/C421 event, controllers are passing more information on nil-mode C tracks … and the jets are taking avoiding action and diverting around the unidentified traffic.

For controllers, this increases workload and communication time in busy environments and takes away some of ATC's ability to assure separation (unpredictable diversions).

For the pilots, scanning for potential VFR traffic is an added distraction in a high workload period in an instrument-based environment.


With regard to speeds in E …

ATC instructions do not overide the mandate limits defined for the airspace. So … an ATC instruction for MAX below A100 can't be issued if the aircraft could go into E.

11th Dec 2003, 19:39
Heaps of VFR guys around without mode C. I had a traffic advisary going into Williamtown yesterday.

It scares the crap out of you when your at 250 knots and you know they're not on radio.

We tried to call the guy for his altitude - no response.

Loving class E!

11th Dec 2003, 21:22
Got toasted by Mel today after another IFR A/c elected to do a VFR climb in E and then tried to self separate from me on the control frequency.

My reply, was 'how are we supposed to arrange separation if we are only single comm, change to another frequency ?' No answer was forthcoming. I guess that Tricky thinks that we should look outside and see each other - I know - switch on the Nav lights - that'll really improve the contrast of the AC against the background haze.

This is typical of another tosser thinking that the USA way is best - sure - ask anyone in Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, Europe, Australia...

Having lots of experience actually flying in this area, rather than in an office, I still say that whoever decided that this idea was safe was braindead.

It sh1ts me to tears to dwell on what they'll think of for their next smart move.

Good on ya guys !

<gets off soapbox>
Free beer my place !!!

12th Dec 2003, 05:14
Wouldn't a couple of publisised prosecutions of the people not squawking mode C in E airspace do wonders to the education of these w*nkers. Trouble is how do you catch them.

Only solution would be to legislate to weld the friggin thing on to the battery.

12th Dec 2003, 05:31

At what point did you jump from one of those so called ppl w##kers to being the so called atpl w##KER you are today. how quick you forget the very people that got you there, people like you make me sick at least VFR pilots are trying to help and improve. You w#ankers think you so perfect and experts in aviation it makes me vomit:yuk: of course you have never forgotten to switch on your transponder or cycle it back over to alt have you, dickh##d.

I doubt most of you have any actual flight experience outside what was handed to you. Get a life!:ok:

Sperm Bank
12th Dec 2003, 05:50
2B1 steady up mate. I agree some of the VFR guys are copping a bit of flak at the moment. Some of it well and truly justified as they have caused plenty of grief. However while we are fighting each other we are missing the point. This is ALL caused by the useless new system we now operate to. It is inherrently unsafe by virtue of its rushed implementation and lack of PROFESSIONAL input and consultation. There are a few self serving morons trying to protect and defend the indefensible. In the fullness of time we will all get to see them for their neolithic incompetence and lack of credibilty.

12th Dec 2003, 09:53
To answer the original question posed on this thread by Duff Man:
Does an ATC cancellation of 250KTS below 10,000FT apply to operations in Class E airspace?
No, it doesn't - that speed restriction still applies. Depending on the STAR and where you are, this is usually not a problem, as the high speed descents normally result in steeper profiles anyway. We have been finding jets given high speed are usually at or above F140 when transitioning from E to C, hence they don't have to worry about it.

But it certainly is a consideration and one that is a pilot's responsibility - if you are still concerned, you could ask ATC to level you off At F110 until reaching C airspace or else knock back the high speed, although that might mean you lose your spot in the sequence :ugh:

12th Dec 2003, 22:01
“250KTS in E” - “30 mile ish terminal area E over D”

- I can no longer apply speed control as effectively as was the case with C!

Pre - 27 Nov!
At 50nm+ I could apply “wide” speed differentials to achieve comfortable unrestricted and EASY simultaneous procedural descent clearances into the circuit area between conflicting IFR/IFR/VFR transitioning from C to D.
AusNAS is absolutely RETROGRADE! FACT!

Hey “Smaket”?……..... PNR is it?:rolleyes:

How’s the membership numbers?
Bothered polling them on AusNAS?
Who proudly agreed to have the AOPA insignia on the AusNAS glossy?
Has AusNAS re-invigorated GA?
Any positives for your membership out of AusNAS?

Anyone else wonder what else “Indiana” has over “Dark Helmet” and “John O’Buttheysaid”?

Must be more than just election handshakes for them to stick with this “Dead Cat”!

2B1ASKDICKpeople like you make me sick at least VFR pilots are trying to help and improveCare to elaborate?You w#ankers think you so perfect and experts in aviation it makes me vomit.……….. being Commercial Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers and in large numbers?!?http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/brdflick.gif

And to what do you aspire? Of course you have never forgotten to switch on your transponder or cycle it back over to alt have you, dickh##d.The point exactly, ye’ ground sheet!

Before “Dickspace” transponders were not critical as a “first line of defence” in “procedural C”! FACT!

I guess “SmithOPA” and the “Bureau de Gobblers” will consider it just a union beat up!:hmm:

Perhaps you or your mate “Smaket” might attempt to explain how AusNAS makes our airspace:-
- Safer
- More conducive to expeditious flow of air traffic
- More cost effective

Just answers to these questions please!