Is it really safe?

[Sky Conductor]

Would airline passengers be happy if they knew that when flying into alot of busy regional airports that they are not being seperated from all traffic in their vicinity?

What im getting at is that with alot of CTR/CTA operating as Class D airspace then sure your separated from other IFR flights but only given traffic info on VFR flights. As a pilot would'nt you like to know that the ATC is keeping everything away from and not only some of the traffic..kinda defeats the purpose of ATC in the first place. As an ATCO working this airspace..does it feel like your not really doing your job fully.

Would Class C airspace at aerodromes provided with ATC be much better for all concerned..IFR separated from both IFR and VFR. The ATCO knows he is providing a proper service to all commercial traffic..the flight crew know that they can concentrate on the approach and landing in the safe knowledge that ATC is separtaing them from all conflicting traffic (obviously situational awarness by the crew is still essential) and not pop outs cloud and see some little egg beater helicopter chugging directly for them..and the passengers know that what they think Air traffic contol does is actually what it does!

As for commercial airports operating with just an ATZ in the middle of a field of Class G airspace..is that not just madness!..so legally an aircraft can fly through an instrument approach at about 3-4 in front of a B757 carrying 200 odd holidaymakers on final approach without saying anything to anyone!! Whats the point of ATC at an airport like that!

Or radar advisory/information service where the controller is only separating traffic that want to play..from a controller point of view..again do you feel your only half doing your job(Not your fault obviously!) but the authourities

I dont think that all aircraft flying anywhere in the UK should be under ATC as that would be over kill..but i think all CTR/CTA should be class C and outside that class G with a flight info service would be fine!

Please dont hesitate to rip my thoughts and opinions to shreds and re-educate me!!

[Widger]

Hey!!!!!! What's the problem? Just ask most aircrew...It's a big sky out there!........Gulp!:\ :\ :\ :\ :\

[Gary Lager]

Of course it's safe, provided all pilots exercise good airmanship, including, but limited to:

Good lookout,

Good situational awareness (in particular their position related to other traffic, instrument approaches, a/f circuits, controlled airspace, terrain etc),

Understanding their responsibilities, and the limitations of ATC provision outside CAS,

Understanding their own limitations (human factors) and the kind of problems they can cause.


Of course aircraft should be allowed to fly outside CAS, so if it's safe for a C152, why not a B757? You could argue that a B757 is easier to see, and has a more highly trained and experienced crew (see above).

Airproxes occur in CAS as well (shurely not?)!

[Pierre Argh]

Feel there's a certain amount of "Ideal World" about this posting.

The safety concerns expressed have some validity... but one must look at the bigger picture, the airspace is used by many people. Requests for more regulated airspace (in the UK) are hard to justify/win. Safety is a consideration, but who says that commercial aviation should have top priority?

[almost professional]

If anything class D is just the right mix of protection for IFR against allowing VFR to operate-its a known traffic environment-so traffic info can be given, and if you need to build in some 'leeway' you have the ability to do so ie not above a level etc
our zone is very active with not just the IFR paying customers but two flying schools, considerable circuit traffic (of all types) and all the transits you could want-many of these would not get the training/routeing they want if we had to provide full seperation-even using reduced in the vicinity-and we have few problems with the way we operate-just make sure every body knows what is going on and use some common sense-it certainly is not unsafe

[JustaFew]

The subject of Class C or D airspace was discussed a couple of years ago, albeit from a slightly different angle. GATCO was/is in discussion with SRG ref IFR flights at airfields with an ATZ only.
I agree with almost professional that the separation standards in Class D are sufficient. The workload for ATCOs and delays for VFR
flights would be unacceptable at many airfields in the UK if the airspace was changed from D to C.

[Evil J]

And correct me if I'm wrong but arent they even looking at making the LHR zone class D??

[Barnaby the Bear]

I don't believe that controllers would consider only doing half the job. I don't know any controller that would not do whatever they feel necessary to ensure safe passage to all aircraft 'on their frequency'.
Outside of Controlled airspace, thats the crucial difference at a procedural control unit, the controller can only provide seperation or traffic on or to known aircraft.

One aspect that I personally feel should be improved is the criteria that a CTR is provided. It is my understanding it goe's on Pax numbers rather than aircraft movements and types.

:}

[tubthumper]

There is still the "Duty of care" chestnut as well. The controllers' primary responsibility has always been to prevent collisions between aircraft in the air, and although standard separation isn't applied as such,reasonable steps are taken to "deconflict" IFR and VFR traffic.

[Scott Voigt]

it seems to work over here and we have a LOT of class D only airports, not to mention a butt load of general aviation. It ought to be rather safe in Ireland especially considering how little GA there is to get in the way of those air carriers.

regards

Scott

[bookworm]

Would airline passengers be happy if they knew that when flying into alot of busy regional airports that they are not being seperated from all traffic in their vicinity?...

As for commercial airports operating with just an ATZ in the middle of a field of Class G airspace..is that not just madness!..

It depends really on whether you think that aviation should be regulated on the basis of rational risk management or on the basis of the perception of safety by those who have no clue as the magnitude of the real risks involved. Personally, I'm for the former.

[Jetstream Rider]

To put it bluntly, its not raining aeroplanes.

You have to be careful about over regulation. Look at the PFA rally, they have 1500 aircraft land a day in radio silence and they are all light aircraft with mixed experience crews. It all depends on attitude and airmanship - which controlled airspace depends on too.

[dublinpilot]

For the purposes of clarification, there is no Class D airspace in the Republic of Ireland.

Only A, C & G.

I believe SkyC is refering to the UK/Northern Ireland

dp

[Highland Director]

For the purposes of clarification, there is no Class D airspace in the Republic of Ireland.

Only A, C & G.

I believe SkyC is refering to the UK/Northern Ireland



I don't think SkyC was suggesting that the ROI had any Class D airspace actually. :D

I rather think he was suggesting that the UK should consider following the example of the ROI and the rest of the world generally, by having Class C CTZs as the default for regional airports with scheduled services.

I have to say that I tend to support his posting, particularly regarding ATC at aerodromes in Class G airspace. I've been working combined TWR/APP in Class G for several years and have never been comfortable with it. It causes no end of confusion for foreign pilots particularly and I don't blame them one bit.

ATC in Class G (the art of separating IFR traffic as best we can from other known IFR traffic in an environment where pilots are not obliged to comply with instructions but are deemed to be complying unless they state otherwise), is a hornets nest which I'm sure will one day end up being the most glorious discovery for some docu-nightmare television program maker.

Anytime I've discussed this with non-UK ATCOs, their reaction is one of disbelief and I'm not at all surprised that they have their doubts as to whether I'm being 100% honest about the system.

For an industry geared to removing ambiguity and confusion and striving to improve safety, I can't understand why this is considered a satisfactory practice.

The 'system' of ATC in Class G together with UK advisory routes (most of which have been in place for 30 years as a trial for proposed Airways) has long since outgrown itself and requires immediate and substantial revision.

Just my thoughts. :sad:

[2 sheds]

I agree with Highland Director - as he says, "I am not comfortable" with working TWR/APP, and even with radar sometimes, in Class G. My own - subjective - assessment is that while very often it is perfectly workable, equally the situation can become less that satisfactory with the workload and reducing options. It depends very much on which part of the country you are in, but in some places everything can conspire against you at times.

What I do not understand is why many of the aerodromes in Class G airspace could not be afforded, at the very least, a Class E CTR - is this too much to ask? We hear all about this Duty of Care, directed at the controllers, what about the CAA's D of C to provide appropriate facilities to do the job properly?

[Highland Director]

What I do not understand is why many of the aerodromes in Class G airspace could not be afforded, at the very least, a Class E CTR - is this too much to ask? We hear all about this Duty of Care, directed at the controllers, what about the CAA's D of C to provide appropriate facilities to do the job properly?

I'm glad someone else thinks along the same lines. I've felt for quite some time that Class E control zones would be the best 'compromise' for want of a better word. It allows ATC to work with the full IFR picture without restricting VFR flight whether GA or otherwise. I'm surprised there isn't more support for it in the UK really. :confused:

[2 sheds]

Quite so - and the "line on the map" would, I am sure, encourage many VFR pilots to announce their presence anyway (as per a MATZ), even if they were not obliged to legally, in addition to the basic provision of compulsory separation of IFR flights, a fairly reasonable requirement.

The point is that the "active" area around an aerodrome in Class G airspace is not self-evident from the charts. The CAA put the stupid little "feather" on the chart to indicate the final approach to the main instrument runway, but the extent of the final approach is not indicated, neither is any other instrument runway, the reciprocal (for departures) is not emphasised (just as important), the area utilised for the procedural IAPs, the radar vectoring area or the holding pattern(s).

And the CAA is responsible for overseeing flight safety? Nothing will persuade me that it is not irresponsible. ICAO implies that an instrument approach really should be provided will appropriate controlled airspace and the pilot flying such an approach deserves nothing less.

If only all the ATC authorites at Exeter, Filton, Shoreham, Manston, Gloucester, Norwich, Southend etc etc would get off their backsides and get together and make an enormous stink about it ....! If CAA continues with its insistence on a minimum number of IFR movements and passengers (logic?) before establishing CAS, they are doing aviation safetya considerable disservice.

[Stelios]

Well, here is a new brief by our company.

You will be the judge whether it's safe or not.

I think it's NUTS!!

All in the name of MONEY f***k safety!!

............................................................ ............................................................ .............................................

We are, as you know about to commence operations into XXX which will
commence XXX.

This will involve operations into a military airfield at which the procedures and facilities are somewhat different to what we are used to. As such the airfield has been classified as a Category B, which requires self-briefing before operating into such an airfield.
As it says in Vol. Supplement; prior to operating to a Category B aerodrome, the commander should be briefed, or self-briefed by means of programmed instruction, on the category B aerodrome concerned and should certify that he has carried out these instructions by completion of an Aerodrome Competence Certificate.

Attached with this FCN is a copy of the XXX Cat B airfield brief which will also go into the Vol. 3 Supplement. All pilots, not just commanders, are urged to read the contents before flying to XXX. Commanders are required to read the brief before operating into XXX.

With this crew Notice, is a copy of the Aerodrome Competence Certificate which commanders must sign and return to XXX HQ at the XXX building in company mail, addressed to Capt. XXX Chief Training Captain.

GENERAL

XXX airport (RAF XXX) is a joint Military / Civil aerodrome operated by the MOD. ATC is provided by the military. The airfield is located on the north XXX coast close to the town of XXX and lies midway between XXX and XXX. Closest alternates are XXX and
XXX.

Note: Fuel is not readily available. It is company policy to tanker on all sectors into XXX

If fuel is required for operational reasons, refuelling can ONLY take place on the military side of the airfield. Plan to board pax at the terminal and then taxi to the refuelling area on the other side.

Adopt normal SOPs for refuelling with pax on-board. Pilot supervision will be required at the wing fuelling station.

TERRAIN

The airfield is adjacent to an area of high ground to the SE of the airfield with elevations rising to 500ft amsl. There is a spot height of 1320ft amsl approximately 7 nm SE of XXX with further spot heights of 915ft, 780ft and 820ft, between 4nm and 8nm SE of the airfield. This high ground has been heavily open cast-mined and being china clay results in large white exposed areas.
As there is a sharp visual contrast to the surrounding terrain these are visually much stronger cues than the runway, which makes early visual sighting of the runway difficult. Approximately 4 nm to the NE is another area of high ground with a spot height of 708ft amsl. To the SE leading up the threshold of XX, the ground rises sharply from a valley some 2-3nm long. To the NW, there is sharply rising terrain leading up to the threshold of XX from the sea to the runway; the runway threshold sits inland by 1 nm at the top of this terrain.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The airfield is equipped with RHAG (Rotary Hydraulic Arrestor Gear) arrestor cables at either end of the runway set in from the threshold of each main runway; for Rwy XX 1704 ft inset, and for Rwy XX 1402ft inset from the respective thresholds. The arrestor cables are there to arrest the rollout of military fast jets by means of engaging arrestor hooks on the aircraft.
The location of the cables is marked on the runway surface by a series of reflective discs, 10 feet (3m) in diameter painted “identification yellow”. These discs are laid out with 30ft (9.1m) between centres and extend the full width of the runway.
There also marker boards to the sides of the runway adjacent to where the cable lies across the runway. The boards (one on either side) consist of a large yellow dot painted on a black background.
The cables and marker boards are lit for night operations.

CAUTION: The reflective discs and yellow dot marker boards, delineating the cable location, are just visible from the approach but only from fairly close-in (depending on visibility) and invariably after descending below decision altitude.
The arrestor cables may be either “raised” or “lowered”. When “raised” the cable is supported at approximately 2m intervals length-wise by rubber “doughnuts” which hold the cable above the runway surface by approximately 11/2 to 21/2 inches. The doughnuts themselves are rubber discs (which the cable runs through) and are 6” in diameter.
The cable MAY NOT be crossed at any speed above taxi speed in the “raised” configuration due to possible tyre damage; particularly the nosewheel, striking the doughnuts. ATC will advise of the configuration of the cable system for both runway ends. On request ATC will arrange for the cable to be “lowered” flush onto the runway surface; this operation may take up to 15 minutes and delay therefore can be expected.
Usually for normal operations the cables will be in the “lowered”, flush configuration.

When the cable is in the “lowered” configuration it is permissible to cross the cable at any speed so long as the cable is under tension and with the following provisos:

Landing

Do NOT land on the cable itself – Flare and Touchdown should be arranged so that either, the aircraft touches down after passing the cable or that ALL the aircraft wheels are rolling along the surface prior to crossing the cable (i.e. nosewheel lowered onto the surface).
Brakes are not applied during crossing of the cable – braking should be commenced AFTER passing the cable on a landing roll.
This also means ALL landings are to be conducted with AUTOBRAKE off; manual braking to be applied after landing and after passing the cable.
(There is no performance decrement, without the use of Autobrake).
Reverse thrust is NOT permitted whilst crossing the cable.
After each landing involving crossing a cable in excess of taxi speed, a visual inspection of the tyre is required before the next departure.

Take-off

As a matter of company policy; Take-off on runway XX should be planned to commence from intersection “X”. The cable will therefore be crossed at only slightly in excess of taxi speed.
ONLY if performance restrictions preclude departure from “X”, will the full length of the runway be used for take-off. In these circumstances it IS permissible to cross the cable at greater than taxi speed.
Note: Rejected takeoffs are considered to be an abnormal or emergency situation,
and as such it is permissible to cross the cables at high speed with braking applied. A detailed inspection of the wheels and tyres (after a high speed RTO) will then need to be carried out before any subsequent take-off is attempted.
It is NOT permitted to Land or Take-off across any “raised” cable except in an emergency.

Runway

The runway is one of the widest in the country, at 285 ft. As such the visual aspect on approach is unusual and there is a visual illusion of the runway being extremely short and of being low on the approach. Make full use of the PAPIs and/or ILS glideslope to make sure you remain on the correct glidepath. On visual breakout from a non-precision approach at either end, monitor rate of descent closely to preclude getting too low or high.
The runway markings are also non-standard compared to civilian runways. The centreline markings are thinner and are less distinct. There are NO touchdown markings of any kind on either runway, runways have threshold bars but no numerical runway designators. Likewise there is NO Touchdown Zone lighting of any kind, hence the higher ILS minima.



AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

ATC is provided by the Military and as such you can expect non-standard phraseology and clearances. Caution is required. You may be offered approaches based on QFE. It is NOT permitted by company policy to use QFE for landing, see Part A. Preferential runway for take-off and landing is XX.
Military phraseology is different to civilian and expect controllers to ask on all approaches that gear is checked down. Response is “Gear Down – 3 Greens”. Failure to announce that gear is down will result in the military controller denying landing until he checks with that the gear is down.
Expect routings inbound via XXX Thereafter, crossing through Class G airspace until within the ATZ. Arrivals and Departures require transit through Class G airspace.
Adopt maximum speed of 250 kts. Expect VFR traffic when VFR conditions prevail. At times of military exercise expect high density uncontrolled fast jet traffic. Make maximum use if the AFDS to ensure good lookout and monitor TCAS at all times. There are no STARS to XXX.
Expect to be passed to London Military 126.075 after passing XXX. After XXX expect hand-over to XXX. ATC will ask what kind of service is required. Company policy is request Radar Advisory Service (RAS) at all times. Expect to contact XXX Director 20-30 nm from the field. Director will provide radar vectors to ILS XX or, NDB or SRA to XX
SRA approaches may be offered to 1 nm. Note; the approach track on RW XX will be offset to the right.
PAR and GCA approaches (talkdown) are NOT permitted by company policy.

There is no ATIS avail on VHF (UHF only). Inbound weather may be obtained for XXX only by calling direct to Approach or Director; caution, possible similar frequency interference at altitude. Diversion weather may be received for XXX on descent down to
at least 6000 ft with the use of “squelch”.

WEATHER

The airfield is subject to low cloud and fog in the spring to autumn period, due to a higher frequency of slack pressure gradients allowing moister air over the sea to spread inland, although XXX can be significantly better than other airfields during December and January.
Anticyclonic conditions in the winter often cause inland airfields to be fog/mist bound but
XXX can remain clear. However the months of June and July can give rise to visibility problems with the increased frequency of slack pressure gradients giving sea breezes bringing moisture inland with potential for sea fog/low cloud and a greater risk of mist/fog/low cloud overnight due to radiation cooling. March and April can be
problematical with the sea being cold after winter cooling with conditions remaining disturbed with high dew point warm sectors.
The prevailing winds are South Westerly and can give strong crosswinds. Severe winter Atlantic depressions can bring strong to gale force winds with driving rain.
When the wind is from the Southeast the high ground between XXX and the south coast
offers some protection from low cloud/mist/fog.

GROUND FACILITIES

Military operations are confined to the runway and military dispersals to the Southwest of therunway.
The civil terminal is located on the northern parallel taxiway. There is a civil apron under
construction but due to LCN problems is not yet useable by XXX aircraft. Aircraft have to park on the taxiway and passenger access is by foot across the apron. There is the potential for aircraft to be boxed in when more than one XXX-size aircraft is at the terminal.
Pilots should expect unusual taxi instructions to orientate the aircraft such the entry door is adjacent to the terminal.
Note: On no account taxi on any of the numerous small dispersal pans adjacent to the main taxiways, as they are not of sufficient LCN to support XXX category aircraft.
There is currently no airstart unit suitable for XXX aircraft; keep APU running on turnarounds and ascertain APU serviceability before departing for XXX.
De-icing facilities are also not sufficient to de-ice XXXs adequately. Consult Operations and consider diversion if snow showers/icing conditions are forecast or present at time of estimated arrival.
Fire cover category as stated in AERAD Flight Information supplement, is Cat 5. However XXX will
provide Military Cat 4A or 3A, which is equivalent to civil RFF Cat 7 and Cat 6 respectively.


CRAP INNIT? But money talks.
Poss briefing to pax before take off: Expect possible violent evasive action(s) before landing!!!

[bookworm]

I'm glad someone else thinks along the same lines. I've felt for quite some time that Class E control zones would be the best 'compromise' for want of a better word. It allows ATC to work with the full IFR picture without restricting VFR flight whether GA or otherwise. I'm surprised there isn't more support for it in the UK really.

I don't think class E would make a significant difference to the risk, and it would significantly increase the complexity of the airspace.

Your class E would protect against flights in IMC crossing an approach at relatively low level. Since the traffic density in IMC at low level is very much lower than in VMC at low level, the risk of collision is small to start with. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no collisions in IMC in the UK for 30 years, probably much longer. Of those potential collisions with IFR flights, most of the transiting IFR flights would be talking to local ATC, whether there's class E there or not. Thus the class E would be very unlikely to be effective in actually reducing the probability of a collision.

The much greater comparative risk is a collision with a VFR flight crossing the approach track in VMC. The traffic density is much higher, and the high workload of an approach means that the ability to see-and-avoid a random VFR flight, which in a fast aircraft is very limited at the best of times, is low. And VFR flights are less likely to be in contact with ATC. But your class E does not prevent a VFR flight from flying right through the localiser at 3 miles.

If you need controlled airspace, you need at least class D airspace.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

I presume that this is the same airfield that has handled commercial traffic for a number of years without difficulty.

PS. London (Mil)/Swanwick (Mil) will be able to give you the weather.

PPS. The warnings about cables make interesting reading. Having worked at numerous airfileds with cables, it is rare for an airliner (737 etc) to have any difficulties. Most places have the approach cable down (flush) and the overrun up.

PPPS. The RHAG positions look pretty clear from this angle. http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=185000&Y=62500&width=700&height=400&gride=181734.761982194&gridn=61832.6163597419&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=ap&pc=&zm=0&scale=50000&multimap.x=507&multimap.y=15

[Gary Lager]

Stelios (ha!) - I take it you have little experience operating into Greek joint civ/mil 'holiday' airports...many have arrester gear (although 'different' ATC) and it appears you have a fairly explict brief as to how to operate accordingly.

What's so unsafe? Are all military airports unsafe unless you are in a military aircraft? What does that say about any of us in civil aviation? I don't see the point you are trying to make other than you can copy and paste a large pdf file.

If you don't think it is safe, I take it that you, as a professional, will be refusing to operate into RAF St MXXXan. Or is not really that dangerous? Please explain.

I'm a 'tiny' bit confused! ;)

[Chilli Monster]

Expect to be passed to London Military 126.075 after passing XXX.

Incorrect - that frequency is a Civil (S9) frequency

runways have threshold bars but no numerical runway designators.

Also incorrect - there are numerical runway designators.

Having operated corporate into this particular airfield with no great problems (traffic density isn't a major worry ;) ) I have to ask - what's your problem?

[Stelios]

Some of you may have experience in operating into this or similar places.
On the face of it it sounds as if one shouldn't even attempt to go there because of the various factors that are in the brief.

This is a passenger flight with a 150 people on board. They don't know my brief and think that they are as safe as ever, like going into Stansted for instance (as safe as it is perceived by them).

I know that potentially it isn't because:

If it's sunny there'll be a load of PPLs filling the sky, if not then there'll be loads of UNcontrolled Military Fast Jets to try to avoid etc..... without adequate radar coverage.

And inconveniently but NOT dangerously there's no de icing or fuel readily available, no airstart etc......

As a commander I think I am quite right to be concerned about these things as it's blatantly part of my job!

Now those of you that have experience in and out of there, may have never seen another soul around which may well be the case, but going just by the brief in front of me I PERCEIVE it quite
Loony.

Thats's all.

So if anyone does have that experience, please enlighten us a bit about the REAL conditions to be expected.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If it's sunny there'll be a load of PPLs filling the sky, if not then there'll be loads of UNcontrolled Military Fast Jets to try to avoid etc..... without adequate radar coverage.

An orange lo-co airline has been flying in to such a place for years. Inverness.

The Harpies flew in to Prestwick for over a decade before it had controlled airspace. Then there's Teesside which was/is unattached to the Airways structure, plus Blackpool, etc, etc.

It's nothing new.

Some of you may have experience in operating into this or similar places. On the face of it it sounds as if one shouldn't even attempt to go there because of the various factors that are in the brief.

There is no such thing as a completely safe flight. Close calls happen in Controlled Airspace too. All you can do is minimise the risk by good airmanship such as actually looking out the window, obtaining a radar service as far as possible, and being aware of local knowledge and likely traffic patterns.

Seems the company brief is giving you a lot of information to make the airmanship aspects easier for you. It's an environment that pilots all over the UK face every day and handle as safely as possible.

[Highland Director]

Your class E would protect against flights in IMC crossing an approach at relatively low level. Since the traffic density in IMC at low level is very much lower than in VMC at low level, the risk of collision is small to start with. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no collisions in IMC in the UK for 30 years, probably much longer. Of those potential collisions with IFR flights, most of the transiting IFR flights would be talking to local ATC, whether there's class E there or not. Thus the class E would be very unlikely to be effective in actually reducing the probability of a collision.

The much greater comparative risk is a collision with a VFR flight crossing the approach track in VMC. The traffic density is much higher, and the high workload of an approach means that the ability to see-and-avoid a random VFR flight, which in a fast aircraft is very limited at the best of times, is low. And VFR flights are less likely to be in contact with ATC. But your class E does not prevent a VFR flight from flying right through the localiser at 3 miles.

If you need controlled airspace, you need at least class D airspace.

Class D is of course the much better option, and much of what you write is very valid. However, I think the larger issue is that presently many airfields operate with basically no genuine form of protection for IFR flights - None at all. There may have been no collisions in IMC in the UK for 30 years. That shouldn't mean we sit on our hands waiting for one. Class C seems to be the preferred choice internationally. In the UK, Class D seems to work well on the whole. But for airfields presently in Class G, I think Class E CTZs are probably as much as we could hope for in today's climate. The goalposts have moved a lot over the years.

There is a reluctance in the UK to give more of the FIR over to the world of civilian regulated airspace. Much more so now than say 30 years ago. I'm quite convinced that the number of aircraft movements and passenger figures at some of today's regional airports in class G would be be on a par if not higher than the figures which led to the introduction of Class D CTZs at many airfields decades ago. It is almost as if the FIR has been 'over fished' and if we give any more airspace over to the formation of new CTZs, then there wont be enough left for PPLs, Military or GA traffic.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes, and I understand the strength of feeling of those who might say, 'why should you have all the airspace?'

That is why Class E might be an answer.

I don't think class E would make a significant difference to the risk, and it would significantly increase the complexity of the airspace.

Class E could not possibly be as complex nor as confusing as the current system of 'controlling' in Class G. Neither could it possibly be as utterly daft as Class F (it only exists if you want to play) airspace. Too many airfields have outgrown the old system of separating those we can - when we can, provided they want separating. It's time to move on....starting with a new look at Class E airspace.

If CTZs were given away cheaply in the past, it is not an excuse for making Airspace changes well nigh impossible today. Any body looked at CAP725 by the way? Hmmmm :hmm: CAP 725 - Airspace Change Process Guidance (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP725.PDF )

[bookworm]

I think you make some excellent, well balanced points, HD.

What I'd like to see is a move towards a classification that doesn't revolve around meteorological conditions. Though it's somehow intuitive that avoiding collisions is related to the ability to look out the window, our current system overrates the capability of the average pilot to see and avoid random traffic.

I'd like to see:

1) Airspace in which all traffic is separated by ATC, (participation is mandatory).

2) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is always available. (current class F, and arguably the same as class E in VMC)

3) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is provided on an ad hoc basis. (current class G)

even if the separation standards could be varied for different types of flight.

We'll see how class N, K, U or whatever stacks up against that.

[Scott Voigt]

I guess I am confused (wouldn't be the first time.) but how would class E airspace make anything harder??? Most of our airspace is class E, while most of our towered airports are class D or greater. We have very little class G through out the US airspace. It doesn't make things difficult at all...

regards

[bookworm]

The difference in philosophy between UK and US airspace structure is about as close to a religious divide as you get in aviation (yes, I'm including the Airbus vs Boeing rubbish!).

The fundamental premise underlying class E airspace is that if you're in VMC you can see the other (silent VFR) guy coming, and if you're in IMC you can't, so you'd better get help from ATC i.e. that see and avoid is to some extent effective. If you don't believe in see and avoid, you might as well make the airspace class G rather than E.

The FAA seems to believe in the premise, to the extent that most of the lower airspace in the CONUS is class E. It also has been known to hand out suspensions to pilots who fly without a clearance in class G, on the careless and reckless catchall.

The UK CAA by contrast seems to not believe in the premise. Most of our airspace is either A/B (separate everything regardless of conditions) or F/G (separate nothing, unless it chooses to participate).

The premise of see-and-avoid makes good sense, and, like many other premises that make good sense, is completely unsupported by scientific evidence. All the evidence points to the conclusion that unassisted see-and-avoid has very low efficacy enroute, and that traffic density is the dominant factor in the probability of collision. Met conditions are irrelevant, except in as much as the traffic density is usually lower in IMC!

Of course I paint that as a black-and-white picture. Risk management is a myriad of shades of grey, but I think the extremes help to follow the principles.

To answer your specific question of why class E makes things harder, the UK does not have the ATC infrastructure to support universal class E as in the US. Any class E would have to be specific zones, which would make navigation in already congested airspace even more taxing for both VFR and IFR, and would make enroute IFR outside the airways structure even more difficult than it already is.

[Scott Voigt]

Hi Bookworm;

Hmmmm, interesting concept... I have visited a couple of units in the UK both enroute and terminal and I didn't see much difference in the folks working the traffic from ours, the equipment was of course different as were the procedures, but I didn't see anything that would keep you from working everything as class E. <shrug> I didn't see anything as extra workload for an issue, nor would you have to beef up your staff to handle extra workload. Please let me know if I am wrong with this, I am always interested in the finer points <G>. I don't know where you work in the UK, but you if you do enroute stuff down south, you can find Andy Amor and he can tell you a bit about how we do it here as he has sat with me a while back. Would LOVE to have him back to see the new stuff <G>...

regards

Scott

[Pierre Argh]

If you find this thread interesting, many similar points are raised in response to my posting "skirting around ATZ's & MATZ's" which you can find at:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179125&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

PS (for Stelios): check your personal messages for more on your comments about a particular airfield.