Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs

[Pierre Argh]

Question for the UK based CA pilots out there... those of you who skirt the various ATZ & MATZ's dotted around the country, often by the smallest of margins (1/2 mile in some cases I've seen). without contacting ATC or the AGS?

Realise, and totally accept, you're often flying in unregulated Class G airspace etc, so are not mandated to use the radio; but its hardly best practice for you and other airspace users, so why do it?

The Challenge to you... give me a reasoned explanation, if there is one? "Because we can"... unacceptable.

[Flyin'Dutch']

And your point is?

Come on Pierre, what has rattled your cage?

You do know that you can even go INSIDE the MATZ (not ATZ) without anybody's permission!

Shock horror!

You do realise that even after talking to ATC/A/G the onus is on you to see and avoid?

[stillin1]

"You do know that you can even go INSIDE the MATZ (not ATZ) without anybody's permission!"

and, if the airspace is "active" - then really become an idiot looking for a place to happen. Don't encourage them FD! KISS & be safe

However I agree - does look like a case of "drinkin&typin"

:ok:

[Miserlou]

'Because you can' is a perfectly acceptable reason. It is why many people learn to fly in the first place. To quote Dickie Bach, "Problems for overcoming, freedom for proving and, as long as we believe in our dreams, nothing by chance."

It is only excercising our freedom. Also, if we don't excercise our freedom we won't notice when it is taken from us.

Another point which fewer an fewer pilots are aware of is how little you actually need a radio and how relaxing flying is without it!

[WorkingHard]

Pierre Argh - For many of us unregulated Class G is the norm. and talking to someone on the radio MAY offer nothing except increase the cockpit workload. There are many places with a MATZ and ATZ which may not want to talk to you. Try talking to most military establishments after 1700hrs on a Friday and see what response you get. Now in the open FIR see and avoid is for ALL, not just the private flyers. We have equal access to this airspace and as Miserlou so rightly said "It is only excercising our freedom. Also, if we don't excercise our freedom we won't notice when it is taken from us"
Try just flying and talking to no one and see what a pleasure it can be.

[Fuji Abound]

The problem is how much you avoid it by - you mention half a mile, but if that is to close so is a mile and so on.

There are many of us who feel there is already too much controlled air space, without it growing by an additional grey zone around it, when the zone already has a protective shell.

[Final 3 Greens]

The Challenge to you... give me a reasoned explanation, if there is one? "Because we can"... unacceptable. The challenge to you is to justify why you feel able to ask such a question in the first place.

How would you like the police to pull you over when doing 28mph in a 30 zone, because you were getting a bit near the limit?

So why should the PPL community justify complying with air law?

Do you have a pilot's licence?

[Whirlybird]

I'll give you a good reason....

Because we don't want to clutter up the radio unnecessarily.

I used to fly from Welshpool, in Class G airspace. I remember as a new pilot, almost having to do a goaround, because some PPL made a quite unnecessary radio call to say he was in the area but outside the ATZ. Did any of us actually care? No.

Now, I fly from Sleap, inside Shawbury's MATZ. It's sometimes hard enough to get a word in edgewise on Shawbury's frequency when you're inside the MATZ or need to be, never mind having people who aren't there butting in too.

So let's leave the radio for people who NEED it.

Is that good enough for you?

[helicopter-redeye]

A quick read of the ANO and Air Law should assist M. Pierre to understand.

NB flying along the appropriate outside boundary of class D (say Leeds) or class A (London) is OK too.

Its Class G, Radio Comm Requirement = No; ATC clearance = No. Even if you talk to them, Separation Provided = Nil.





NB I would add that I normally talk to everybody I pass if I can get a word in. But then, thats just me being friendly.

h-r :)

[Flying Farmer]

I quite like on occasions to potter about with a student in Class G and not have to worry about ATC. But come on folks if you take this to the extreme why not go and fly in circles on Exeters instrument approach because its class G and to quote "because you can"
Even with a PPL I would have liked to have seen a little more consideration here, "because you can" is not a valid excuse. We try and train to a professional standard for gods sake act like one :*
Its called Airmanship I believe, just because its legal really dosen't make it safe.

[SKYYACHT]

Some MATZ are also Class D..... Enter without a clearance at your peril....!!!

Good Airmanship dictates that to go to the limit is pushing your luck. I accept that the law is quite specific, and I take the point about speeding in a car. However, the 30MPH limit that you refer to is a MAXIMUM limit, and good driving dictates that sometimes 28MPH is too fast for the conditions.

How close is close?

If the aircraft is pottering along at say 50kts there is more chance that no infringement/conflict is likely. However, if you are tooling along at 130kts then perhaps a bigger margin of clearance is needed, and that 2nm may be too close.

I think there is no easy answer to this one.

Cheers

[Squadgy]

Some MATZ are also Class D

Errrr, where's that then :confused:

[2Donkeys]

I'm guessing that SKYYACHT is confusing MATZ (which are not class D) with the CTZs that exist around places such as Brize and Lyneham.

2D

[Squadgy]

That's what I was thinking he was thinking too :uhoh:

[niknak]

Aircraft skirting the ATZ, and crossing the climb out lane of the runway use without talking to us is an all too common occurance in our neck of the woods.
It frequently leads to delays for inbound and outbound aircraft, today two had to be held on the runway for 5 and 7 minutes respectively (a B737 and a A320) and a B757 and a F100 had to be given an extended routing of 10 and 8 extra miles onto the final approach, simply because aircraft were crossing the climb out/final approach lane at ranges of between 2.5 and 8 miles and not talking to us.

This is not unusual.

I accept that outside the ATZ it's the open FIR and you're perfectly entitled to transit without calling, but if you make a habit of this, you have absolutely no idea of the problems you cause.

One call will establish where you are, what your intentions are, and what height you are, without this information we are required to provide considerably more separation to inbound and outbound IFR aircraft, additionally other VFR aircraft have extra workload put upon them.

The "because we can" attitude is about as unhelpful as you can get, it also demonstrates a standard of airmanship which casts a sad reflection on G/A.

[Fuji Abound]

Niknak - yes I agree.

I see I had also not properly read the question. Whilst I think you should work as close to the edge of a ATZ as you wish, I also think you should inform the controller of your intentions, particularly when crossing the localiser.

Practically why do it - well it may enable a quicker routing - avoiding ATZs often adds significantly to the length of your journey without having to give ATZs and even wider birth. Personally, if it suites the routing I will ask for a zone transit - it is very rarely refused, however I do remember as a newish PPL that seemed quite a big deal.

[Laundryman]

I worked hard for the privilege of a PPL it cost me a lot of money, part of what I learned was to exercise consideration. So, if my course brings me close to a MATZ why not ease the minds of those controlling that space by letting them know that I know what I'm doing and if I want to penetrate their Zone why not politely ask permission and if they have some huge plane coming in at the same time, well OK, its no major problem for me to turn. SO come on guys lets not push our weight around, forcing a giant jet to divert just cos we legally can is bad manners.

[ATCO Two]

One of my major safety concerns is unknown aircraft skirting the Eastern edge of the London City Control Zone at 2400ft. When EGLC are departing 10, especially in high temperatures, aircraft barely make their SID levels, and occasionally fly just outside controlled airspace on their way to 3000ft. Without going into the possible reasons for this, I do not think it is fair and reasonable for airliners with fare paying passengers on board to be put at potential risk from light aircraft not talking to Thames Radar, skimming the edge of CAS just because "they can". Such actions are not good airmanship in my humble opinion.

[Aussie Andy]

I am sympathetic to Niknak's perspective: it's a game of give and take. For class D and similar I think its OK to skirt controlled airspace but ordinarily think good airmanship indicates you should be in contact with relevant ATSU. In return though I would hope to get a useful service from the ATSU concerned, at least FIS, ideally with radar cover as well, which makes it a good trade, as it were.

I think ATZs for small airfields (i.e. non-Class D) are a differnt kettle of fish altogether: it may help your situational awareness, and that of others, to be in contact with e.g. say Wycombe TWR when passing by, but don't imagine you will be able to hear all local traffic on the frequency - so keep your eyes open too :O !! There typically isn't the same sort of risk here as eluded to by Niknak.

MATZ's are different: if you are sufficiently familiar with the working habits of your local MATZ zones then you might be fogiven for trundling through (e.g. weekends), but there are sometimes when the MIL are doing their thing at unexpected times so it's worth a call - what does it cost? I operate from a MIL airfield quite a lot and can assure you that just because you haven't heard or seen it, it doesn't means something big and fast or unexpected is not there! Just because something is not mandatory doesn't mean there is no rationale for it's existence... I reckon if we behave as if MATZ are not there at all, then there is a danger that one-day some bureucrat might decide they should be "upgraded" to something more restrictive!

Like others, I wouldn't necessarily want to see any less Class G. But if offered a useful trade - like Class E in the US which is like Class G when VMC prevails, but useful for IFR separation when IMC prevails and in which - if one wants it - you can get a proper, coherent radar service... well, I'd be all for that! Hell may freeze over first of course...

Andy :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

Niknak

With the very greatest of respect, PPLs are not responsible for planning airline ops in class G.

One could take the view that planning this type of operation and then criticizing GA traffic for exercising its legal right to operate in the area is the equivalent to a stealth tax.

Airlines don't pay VAT on fuel and we do, so please don't expect too much sympathy from me if the poor darlings have to fly a few more miles - they may be your customers, but they are not mine and your commercial considerations should not impact on me.

On the occasions that I spoke with a certain ATSU in SE England, to advise them of my intentions, the response I got was often brusque, unhelpful and occasionally plain rude. The individuals there who indulged in that behaviour probably also spoke to others, who probably also decided to talk to someone else too.

Also, please remember the basic tenets of airmanship taught to all PPLS - aviate, navigate and communicate, in that order.

[Aussie Andy]

ATCO Two - I just read your post and am very sympathetic with your point-of-view as well. I have a suggestion which I think would help encourage the "give and take" that's required on both sides: could EGLC offer LARS? If so, it would appear on our charts as such (as well as in AIP ENR 1.6.3) and more people would be encouraged to call for a service, and that way you'd have more chance of guiding people as required. Maybe it's the case that you are happy to provide a service for passing traffic anyway - I've never called Thames Radar as I am under the impression it's really for zone transits (but I am not sure?)... anyway, I give you a wide berth whenever I steam by...

Sadly for us, it seems inevitable in that case that one day someone will enlarge the Class D if ATCO's concerns on this front remain - so I would hope that others take heed and think about leaving a wider margin in this case!


Andy :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

Atco 2Without going into the possible reasons for this Perhaps you ought to, it sounds pretty scary to me. What you are saying is that you do not believe that it is safe for GA traffic to comply with the relevant air law and that is profoundly worrying.

[Aussie Andy]

F3G: PPLs are not responsible for planning airline ops in class G. That's true, but I still feel that the alternative (less Class G) is less attractive and may inevitably be the outcome if we don't communicate when able. But it's a two-way street! You go on to say: the response I got was often brusque, unhelpful and occasionally plain rude Sadly I think we have all experienced this - it doesn't take much to read between the lines (e.g. Luton!) to discern the not-so-hidden message which is "oi, yo, b*gger off and don't disturb us important people..".

It's like that well-know red/blue strategy game often taught in business schools or on "personal development" training courses: it doesn't take much for us versus them mindsets to set in, inevitably leading to less than ideal outcomes for both players! So it's better for all, on both sides, to "play nice"...

F3G again: What you are saying is that you do not believe that it is safe for GA traffic to comply with the relevant air law and that is profoundly worrying I believe the situation re- the EGLC SIDs and STARs proximity to that eastern end of the Class D has been discussed on here a while back (or maybe ATC forum?)... From memory it's a bit of an historical anachronism: while some of the SID/STAR profiles have changed, the other thing that has changed is that many GA SEP have GPS aboard. In the "pre-digital" era, you'd naturally give a wider berth to protected airspace boundaries because you had to make decisions based largely on analogue instruments and mark-1 eyeball, erring for caution slightly further than closer. But with our little line on our GPS screens, now any fool can fly within a gnat's todger's width of an airspace boundary, compounding the sitiation. As you say, it is "profoundly worrying" and if people keep doing it then inevitably someone in CAA will respond by enlarging the Class D... is that what you want?

Andy :ok:

[Grainger]

Surely the whole point of skirting or circumnavigating a zone rather than taking a direct routing is to reduce both your and the controller's workload by not asking for a service / transit that you don't really need and can easily avoid by remaining Class G, even if it means a little bit of a dog-leg.

However, niknak makes a valid point that often height information may not be available, leading to a certain amount of uncertainty, so there's no harm in letting everyone know what you're doing. I usually find a quick call of "Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required" will do the trick.

[Miserlou]

Aaah, I see the rules are changing already. From being about flying close to airspace boundaries it's now about keeping clear of the in and outbound sectors and airmanship.

Well, I'm not suggesting people go flying round airspace boundaries for the hell of it.

Niknak, and Fuji,
The whole point of uncontrolled airspace is that it is uncontrolled. If some-one wishes to talk to a neighbouring ATC unit let them but I fail to see how that helps IFR seperation. The aircraft outside of controlled airspace has no obligation to tell you if he should change his mind about what he has told you beyond politeness. I have never had a problem with accepting a take-off clearance with "unknown traffic".

What I'm trying to get over is that knowing what you are allowed to do and being able to do it if you need to is a major part of airmanship.

It is so easy to question another's airmanship. Like saying safety, it puts you on the moral high ground but doesn't actually achieve anything.

I consider the ability to conduct flight WITHOUT the use of radio a much greater feat of airmanship than the other way round.

There is also an argument that goes along the lines that,"We may as well make this bit controlled as well because people are always calling and asking for etc...".

[Chilli Monster]

The whole point of uncontrolled airspace is that it is uncontrolled. If some-one wishes to talk to a neighbouring ATC unit let them but I fail to see how that helps IFR seperation. The aircraft outside of controlled airspace has no obligation to tell you if he should change his mind about what he has told you beyond politeness. I have never had a problem with accepting a take-off clearance with "unknown traffic".

Ok, look at it from another perspective.

Airfield in Class 'G' with radar and ILS. A/C inbound IFR under a RAS being descended. He's positioning in the approach configuration, ready for glidepath intercept.

At the same time 7000 squawk, no mode 'C' is aiming straight at the 5 mile point of the ILS and exercising his divine right not to talk to anybody. ATCO has no idea whether the guy is 500 ft or 5000ft, and has no option but to break off the approach.

The radio call would have established his level, and could have prevented the break off and subsequent vectoring. Still think it's not an aid to separation?

[J.A.F.O.]

Grainger

I must say that your:

"Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required"

makes sense, don't know why I hadn't thought of it, don't know why it's not on every page of CAP 413.

The controller knows who you are, where you are and what you're doing but doesn't have to add to his workload and you're talking to someone in case it all goes Pete Tong and you need help.

Fantastic.

[rodan]

Whilst not wanting to get embroiled in a debate about the rights and wrongs of skirting the edge of an ATZ without talking to the relevant ATSU, to those that see it as an issue of exercising their right to fly in uncontrolled airspace unhindered I feel I should point out that the frequency of unknown traffic delaying the progress of IFR traffic by this means will doubtless be a large factor in the DAP's considerations when that unit inevitably applies for a class D zone to gain some protection.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you value the freedom of class G, the way to protect it is to help make sure it works. Why not play the game? The outcome otherwise is going to be more controlled airspace, and less of your jealously guarded freedom.

[Aussie Andy]

rodan's comment above I think sums it up very well: if you value the freedom of class G, the way to protect it is to help make sure it works The alternative belligerence won't serve our interests well.

So on Saturday when (weather permitting) I fly from Wycombe to Land's End I will call Boscombe MATZ, although I am 99% sure nobody will be home (this will cost me 20 seconds effort). I may tune into Thruxton & Old Sarum ATZ frequencies as I pass over to hear what's going on,but there may be no need to make calls and waste anybodies time there if I am able to stay well clear vertically of these zones. Then I will call Exeter as I pass by from the west within about 5NM of the EX NDB and the associated instrument approach path marked on the chart; I will take an FIS (maybe convert to RIS if needed depending on wx/vis) from them, which is a good trade and will cost me nothing - and if the zone is clear, it might enable me to cut the corner... Then likewise I'll call Plymouth, and later St. Mawgan & Culdrose. I doubt any of this will lead me to think my freedom & rights have been in any way dimished... I just don't get that attitude!?!

Andy :ok:

[High Wing Drifter]

I read somewhere a few months ago that BALPA were pushing for nationwide Class D or C above a certain level
:uhoh:

[WorkingHard]

Aussie Andy - In areas of high traffic density and high airfield density you are clearly correct. In other open FIR regions the incidence of traffic is small and many airfields simply dont want to talk to you. May I also point out that the attitude as you put it may be a result of GA being treated as second class citizens by so many units. It is not an excuse just a possible reason. We can all think of examples. Recently for example we have Doncaster airport established with "free" approaches by GA for practise. Now they have at least one commercial flight a week and when I called them on a weather diversion I was told I needed to give three weeks notice for an ILS approach and I would have to pay for the approach and for navigation charges. ALL I wanted was a let down! My initial call was to tell them I was heading across their published instrument approach path. Who has the attitude problem? I shall continue to excercise good airmanship at all times but my views of SOME airfields are well founded.

[helicopter-redeye]

Uncertain which field you are at NN, but the aircraft you refer to may be taking a service from another controller (say a LARS service) or London Information, and have only one radio box.

This is a small and conjested island, and if the ANO is being upheld then there is no cause for complaint (unless you believe the law is wrong ??).

NB just a debating point, I have loads of radios and talk to multiple sites (and keep listen watches) but not everybody has that luxury (and some aircraft are not radio equipped and can fly legally in Class G airspace, remaining clear of ATZs).

h-r:)

[ShyTorque]

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Some ATC decisions / instructions are based on a perceived idea of cost and NOT on safety grounds.

The rules of the air dictate who should give way, not the cost of fuel.

I'll give an example.

Pilot flying in class G in CAVOK conditions calls up ATC (ATZ only, but with an Approach controller) to inform them of his position and that he is passing 9 miles abeam and requesting flight information.

Approach controller immediately orders pilot to "Turn left 50 degrees, I have inbound traffic south of you by 6 miles, shortly turning inbound".

Traffic is in sight and is no threat as it will pass behind. If pilot complies with ATC instruction it will subsequently put him in a position where rules of the air dictate that he will end up having to giving way to the inbound, likelihood of reversed track.

Next time perhaps pilot won't bother to call....

It does happen.

[Pierre Argh]

thank you stillin1 and nik nak for coming down on my side.... it was interesting to see the split in opinion.

To the rest... Fact, in the UK ATC are not allowed to disregard non-participating traffic; and so have to apply increased separation standards against unknown traffic (check the rules yourself)

My point is calling ATC/AGS need not restrict your freedom (Heck, you don't even have to agree to anything... you're in un regulated airspace after all)... but by letting them know who/where you are they may be able to:

a. Inform other aircraft to assist their look out (safe).

b. Reduced separation = reduced delays (expeditious)

... and if you want peace & solitude, the freedom of the open skies etc... or are in the middle of teaching a delicate, but difficult manoeuvre to a student. Find yourself a chunk of Class G, place yourself away from any ATZ/MATZ/CTZs etc. and enjoy.

Is everyone's happy....

PS... it was slightly unfair of me to target this at the GA fraternity, truth is many military pilots are as guilty... but didn't want this thread to spin off on a tangent.

[RPMcMurphy]

Hi Shy T
With reference to your scenario, does the controller make any attempt to identify the aircraft calling? Does the controller make any reference to the type of service being provided (FIS,RIS,RAS etc)?
If the answer to any of the questions are no, feel free to MOR the controller or unit concerned.
However, if the answer to both questions is yes, the correct course of action would have been to acknowledge the traffic info on the inbound a/c, and either carry on your way with a FIS or decline to participate any further with the service.
Either way, info was given to the pilot about a potential confliction which the pilot may not have been aware of if two way contact hadn't been made.
As an ATCO providing a Tower and Procedural Approach Control service at a unit in Class G airspace, I greatly appreciate any calls made by passing aircraft, especially if they intend to (quite legally) cross the final approach track or climb out lane. I like having the traffic info around to inform my circuit traffic. Bear in mind that when things get a little busy at these units, the sheer volume of traffic in the circuit can often take the pattern outside of the ATZ. It ain't the atco's or the pilot's fault: if there are 6 or 7 in the circuit and a bunch of joiners, these things happen. Look out for aircraft flying v-bomber circuits in their pipers and cessnas too, often outside the ATZ.
So by all means bimble around making no calls. I used to trogg around in a cub with a radio that was worse than useless. I can see the appeal in the feeling of freedom, but keep a good look out and all should be well. However, a courtesy call to any local units surely isn't too much of an imposition and may stop a training student bashing the circuit from getting a very nasty fright.

[Miserlou]

Some might call having to buy a radio an infringement of their freedom.

Imposing unnecessary pressure on an uncontrolled flight is also bad airmanship; it increases perceived workload.

For as many examples as you can find to back up your 'opinion', I can find as many examples to the contrary.

When an airfield gets sufficiently important to warrant it's own controlled airspace I am in no doubt it will get it.
Until then the GA community will have to listen to the bleating of ATCOs who really would have liked to work at a 'proper' airport, fortunately a very small minority.

Nicely put Murphy,
But you can see how \'appreciating a call\' could be seen as self-justification. The more more people who make that call, the more work there is for you. And it follows then that \'in the interest of safety\' the airspace should be upgraded. It\'s a slippery slope.

I\'ve always been astounded at how busy some places seem when I hear all the r/t traffic. V.difficult to see all the aeroplanes though, they are so far from each other because of the time taken up on the radio.

6-7 in the circuit does \'sound\' very busy but the system can easily cope with more if it were non-radio.

[GroundBound]

As an ex (civil) ATCO who worked a MATZ, I fully appreciate the usefuleness of a call to ATC. Whenever I am close to any sort of zone, but not entering, I will give a call to ATC just to let them know who the radar return belongs to and who they need to talk to if they should have any problems. This will allow them to make better judgement calls on their own traffic which I can't see. If I get a curt reply with "remain clear of airspace" etc. its usually for a good reason (like high speed bits of metal). If they don't want to talk to me, no problem.

If outside a zone and given an ATC instruction (which is of course incorrect of the controller and not mandatory to follow), I will comply (and have done so in the past), if I consider it safe to do so and it doesn't put me into cloud, of course. :)

I've always seen ATC as a friend, never an enemy, and I can't think of any time flying in the UK, or elsewhere, where ATC have not been helpful.

GB

[ShyTorque]

A good pilot will give all possible help to ATC because we strongly believe in working together, but sometimes it's not easy. :ouch:

Another one:

Pilot, attempted to speak to a radar unit in good time (as soon as airborne, well clear of airspace). Attempt was to obtain FIS and request transit across base of a TMA, to avoid other ATZ close to track. Reply was to standby. Apparently then forgotten (because subsequent similar GA aircraft calling given immediate attention and service).

Pilot called one more time before descending to below TMA (and calling other airfield below on box 2). Told tersely again to standby by controller. Having shrugged shoulders, underflown and cleared beyond TMA, pilot called simply "Callsign, clearing to south, going on route" as a service no longer required or expected.

As a reply to this call, controller then (without having positively identified or agreed service of any sort) immediately gave avoiding action on an inbound airliner in class G, ahead and above, crossing track. When the ordered 40 degree turn was declined, as other aircraft seen and not conflicting, controller gets in a fizz and berates pilot over RT, saying that "other pilot might now file against him due to possible TCAS warning" (but no warning from pilot's own TCAS, with aircraft no closer together than 4 to 5nm).

Both a/c in class G, excellent VFR, no avoiding action necessary under "see and avoid" principle. Airliner unusually being flown outside controlled airspace but no conflict.

Yes, the MOR is an option and next time said pilot might just use that channel. However, given such treatment, one tends not to call, simply to avoid the hassle.

[helicopter-redeye]

Aviation, like most of society, attracts a wide range of people, attitudes and competence.

What is noticably lacking if the understanding of the 'other person point of view' in many cases.

It would be valuable if we had more familiarisation trips to the Tower, Approach Control & etc, and controllers, FISOs had more time in the air with pilots (i.e. not them flying for those that are also GA pilots, but with somebody else to appreciate their point of view).

I'm sure it would do no 'arm. May even do a little good as well.

h-r:)

[Fuji Abound]

I agree about giving a courtesy call. It takes only a moment and never mind the class D traffic, it gives everyone else an indication of who is around and at what height. Of course if you do not have a radio you cant make the call.

Never the less I think we get horribly wrong this business about giving commercial traffic some sort of special treatment. The fact of the matter is that already there are huge areas of controlled airspace in this country. Having done some flying in the States the integration of GA with commercial traffic is seamless, the controllers ever helpful and I cant help thinking their whole mindset improves the use of the airspace for all concerned. Whilst my own experience is that the controllers here, particulaly in more recent times, have improved greatly in providing a service to GA there still seem to be many exceptions reported here and elsewhere where radio calls are ignored, forgotten or the pilot left on standby for an unacceptably long period of time.

I dont pull over on the road to let a coach pass me by because it is loaded with 60 fare paying passengers, and when events dictate they sit in the same traffic jam with the rest of us without the traffic police giving them special treatment.

[dublinpilot]

One of the problems here, is the fact that certain units seem to have enough controlled airspace to keep their arrivals & departures well within their airspace, and therefore aren't interested in what's going on outside it. I have read here in the past, some controllers saying they are over worked, and try to help out as best they can, but would prefer if people out for a bimble didn't call them up looking for a FIS. They simply don't have the time to deal with it.

On the other hand, some units have to send traffic outside their airspace, and as such may find a call from traffic outside their zone, very useful.

It's not apparent from looking at a chart, who would appreciate a call, and to whom a call is a further nuisance.

dp

[WorkingHard]

Any ATCOs want a trip aloft coming close to your boundary? I'll happily oblige any time (well nearly anytime). Pick a day of poor viz and a track close to your zone boundary at a time when you have little traffic. See (hear?) the responses you get from different units and see how sometimes your perception of your zone boundary differs from ours both on a map and a GPS. Of course any decent pilot will not be deterred from calling any unit that he wants to talk to or indeed ought to talk to but some, just a very few, people on the end of a radio on the ground are real ****s. You guys know who they are, you work with them so why not do all of us a favour and persuade them they need additional training.
Just to add I believe our ATC is as good as it get anywhere in the world and we should be proud of it, so please accept that some need just a little more training.

[RPMcMurphy]

I'll gladly accept your offer... I'll even pay your landing fee and buy you a beer (afterwards of course). Let me know next time you are passing EGPM:oh:

[FlyingForFun]

Curiously enough, a student of mine raised this very subject today when we were talking about a route he was planning which took him close to an ATZ. Conversation went something like this:

Him: "So would you contact XYZ Approach, even though you're not going through their ATZ?"

Me: "Think of it this way. Imagine you're leaving the circuit, and as soon as you leave the circuit you find another aircraft right in front of you. Of course it's everyone's responsibility to see and avoid, but wouldn't it have been much easier if the other guy had told ATC he was there, and then ATC could have told us?"

Him: "Yeah, I suppose when you think of that way, it's just common sense isn't it?"

So there you go. The verdict from a student pilot is that "it's just common sense." As for those who say it's uncontrolled airspace, so it's legal to be there without talking to anyone, yes that's true. It's also legal for an IMC-rated pilot to fly an aircraft with no instruments at 139kt in 1600m viz on a x-country flight, but that doesn't make it sensible. We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie. If we abuse this priviledge, as others have said, the only thing which can result is that it will be taken away from us.

FFF
--------------

[WorkingHard]

RPMcMurphy - If I come your way I certainly shall but I dont often have a need to go that far north. I bet you dont get too many unknown radar returns either!
FFF said "We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie"
I do think a great many would not agree with that statement. We are very regulated indeed and for the most part quite correctly so. Many of the regulations are of no benefit to GA, only to CAT and it seems little thought is given to the impact of those regulations.
Others have said that if one wants to go close to a boundary without the use of RT then it is perfectly legal and correct so to do. IT IS so why are they "wrong" and why should that result in yet more regulation? More regulation is usually a result of someone with a bigger stick making thier point over others. BA and more CAA charges to GA for example.

[carbar]

I have been reading this thread with interest and was wondering what the correct RT response would be to an ATC instruction which you choose not to follow since you are in class G, and so not obliged to do?

Also, if you are receiving a flight information service and decide that you don't want to talk to the controller any more, you would request a frequency change from the controller. But what would happen if the controller declined your request?

Carl

[ShyTorque]

The word you are looking for is "Negative".

Politely followed by your intention / alternative action. Don't forget to sound friendly about it or don't expect a fancy clearance through his airspace on the return trip :p

[Pierre Argh]

carbar

I agree with shytorque... "negative" will do, but would also suggest "unable to comply" or similar would be more informative.
("Unwilling to comply" might be closer to the truth but sounds very negative... which, if there is no reason for refusal is, perhaps, exactly what you are being?)

Re: changing on route... my advice is don't request it! If you're in open FIR there is no mandate to be on the radio, therefore you don't need permission to change (at the risk of contradicting myself, but perhaps proving I do know the rules... just say "c/s changing en-route" with perhaps a "Good Day!" thrown in if I've been nice to you... but PLEASE no "Sir!". I will be glad you called in the first place.... promise.

However, once you leave frequency, you become unknown traffic again, and the controller is back to taking increased separation from you...

Finally... I know some ATCOs can be unco-operative, sorry its a fact of life/human nature. Firstly, high-workload is not constrained to the cockpit environment... secondly, everyone has to learn, then when you've learnt you gain experience.

[robin]

I've been following the thread with some interest, given recent experiences.

My own technique is usually to give a courtesy call to the nearest station as I pass by, mainly to tell them what I am doing, but also for me to listen in to any conflicting traffic. If I hear an aircraft is likely to be near to me I pass a second position message so the other pilot knows where I am.

At least that is the theory -

Too often, at boundaries there is a confusion as to who is providing service. I was nearly blatted by a PA28 out of Coventry whilst I was working Brize. Brize didn't know about him and as a low and slow craft, I was low down on his very busy Radar. When I asked what had happened, they shrugged it off, as the other pilot 'wasn't working us'

Similarly, at our local field, outbound on Tower freqency about to change to Approach you can often meet inbound Approach aircraft about change to Tower. On a busy airfield with difficulty breaking into the radio conversation, that also creates a hazard.

Between Shoreham and Solent, the same thing. Lots of options as to who to call, and no guarantee that 2 aircraft in the same space are tuned alike. We might be in contact with one service or another, but rarely both. We are often lulled into a sense of false security communicating with a service, when the service doesn't have all the info.

Finally, I am torn between the views of ATCOs and "non-radio" pilots. I don't agree that the commercial imperative necessarily should take priority.

Having been held in the circuit at EGTE for what seems like hours, orbiting while the wake turbulence decays, just in time for the next holiday jet to arrive, I think they have it a bit too much their own way. Even worse, the ATCOs there are on duty well past the published hours, yet, GA pilots here have to pay a hefty, 'after hours' fee for attempting to land a few minutes after 7pm on a Saturday. Not the ATCOs fault, of course.

[DFC]

To answer the original question - because if being outside the ATZ isn't working then the ATZ needs to be bigger or some other regulated airspace needs to be provided.

Lots of people say - the UK has large chunks of Class G airspace. Yes it does. But it also has possibly the most regulated class G airspace that I have come across outside the USSR and east bloc countries during the cold war.

Much of the "problems" encountered is that the UK tries to turn large parts of Class G into pseudo controlled airspace. At times this controlled class G can be more restrictive than class D with VFR flights being restricted and IFR flights being even more restricted.

Class G - no separation, no clearance for both IFR flights and VFR flights. Stick to that and everything is simple.

If there are a small number of IFR flights to and from your regional airport then the only simple answer is Class E. Places like Farnborough, Bristol (both of them) should have Class E airspace out to say 30nm. In that case, any flight not talking to them, in that area will have to be VFR and in VMC and thus no separation from IFR is required..........OK - ATC probably won't let the blips merge but they are no longer required to provide 5nm / 3000ft separation.

The CAA's recomendation regarding passing close to regulated airspace is to plan to miss by 5nm. While the GPS may have caused people who navigate visually to track ever closer to airspace boundaries, few such operators are aware that even the approved BRNAV units are only certified to keep the aircraft within 5nm of track.........hence the idea to plan a 5nm miss unless the mark 1 eyeball can be sure that the aircraft is outside the airspace.

Finally regarding a busy circuit extending outside the ATZ at a controlled aerodrome - now IMHO that is both poor airmanship and poor controlling combined........when will pilots start flying a standard circuit and if the circuit is too busy, hold overhead until one can fit into the pattern rather than simply making the pattern bigger. The same could be said of the controller who overloads the circuit.

There are few pilots around who remember the use of light signals with no radio and thus the whole idea of what is meant by the signal do not land continue to circle means or the return for landing signal means.............could we start having the same signals by radio please at controlled aerodromes rather than everyone come in at once and make a big big circle (circuit) so thay you can all land!

I well know the situation where IFR flights depart from aerodromes in the UK with nothing more than an ATZ - not ideal but somthing the UK thinks is a good idea - why?.........what VFR fligts are disadvantaged by Clas E airspace? - none!

Regards,

DFC

[Pierre Argh]

DFC

I like your ideas... separation against IFR traffic only and let the VFR traffic get on with it sounds great and I'd like to think it would work, but regretably I am sure that some pilots supposedly flying VFR in the UK cannot be "trusted".

I was in group conversation at a local flying clubs when one pilot said "I was flying along VFR, into and out of cloud..." I asked him to repeat, and he said the same.

When challenged, others in the roup recounted similar experiences, until told that if entering cloud you can't be VMC, therefore you cannot be VFR!

There was an embarassing silence. All seemed to have missed the point of what VFR really means, and none were doing anything about their responsibility to avoid other aircraft other than rely on the big sky theory and trusting to luck?

[Wide-Body]

All that is needed with regard to Matz and ATZs is a Little common sense. As most will do spend time on educating the pilots not opening even more restrictions. The last thing we need is the whole of UK a controlled airspace. Or is Piere just angling for more controller jobs.


As for the VFR comment above the phrase "Nobody likes a smart ar$£" comes to mind

Wide:(

[neilmac]

I can see both points of view, being a Military controller and also a PPL-IMC holder. As a controller it is good to have a picture of known traffic, ie if traffic tells you what he/she is doing you can attempt if required to keep your possible military IFR traffic away and get some separation. Would you in your PA28 cross say just outside a fast jet unit ATZ? Is that safe? although your quite within your rights wouldn't you rather know about and have traffic info on the 4 ship fast jet departure? Yes its see and avoid Glass G but surely for flight safety its not much of a hassle to give a call. We do provide LARS/Zone transits to many a/c and these days thats most of our workload which we do happily(well most of the time)! We are there to assist, Ive helped numerous of GA traffic whether they are diverting to my unit, temp unsure of posn and in emergency. Is it too much to ask in return to give us an info call? Ive held a C17 on the ground due to unknown MATZ crossing traffic, not for my benefit but the GA pilot would have got a hell of a fright if I sent it climbing towards him/her. I agree though sometimes freqs are just to busy and its mayhem and you can't call that I guess is sods law(if you know its a busy unit maybe try an early call)? proves GA is popular though :D One member suggests its added workload calling, I was taught the basic 3: aviate, navigate and communicate. If operating a radio is too much workload may I suggest you stay on the ground.

If in open FIR yep change on route no problem, only thing I would say if you have been asked under a FIS for co-ordination can u maintain ----ft and you agree, by going on route sqwk 7000 you will stuff the controller who is working the other traffic and he would have to avoid 5nm/3000ft. In that instance he may ask can you maintain this freq for X amount of miles. But your within ur rights to go en route....... just don\'t expect a happy controller !

[Final 3 Greens]

If operating a radio is too much workload may I suggest you stay on the ground. This is an amazing comment from a controller with a pilots licence and totally misses the point of why aviate, navigate, communicate is taught to students.

The point is that workload is context variable and aviating and navigating and communicating are done in that sequence when the pressure is on. Good airmanship means taking decisions like that from time to time. IMCR Holder??? DOH! Perhaps the display of this level of thinking could explain why it is nor recognised outside the UK. :-)

I am a little concerned about controllers pontificating about what should be on this thread.

Whilst pilots should use courtesy, common sense and consideration, controllers should control their airspace and not whinge about what happens outside it.

This country has seen restriction after restriction piled on on recent years, in the interests of "safety" or "security", not just in the aviation sector. It's time to strat pushing back :}

[BEagle]

Although most people try to co-ordinate, sometimes Air Traffickers need putting firmly back in their box. Fortunately, this is an exceptionally rare event.

Once upon a time I had to do my routine 'high-rot spin' exercise in one of HM's Bulldogs as part of routine recency requirements. Part of the requirement was that it was mandatory to enter at FL100. To climb the mighty 'dog to that level takes quite a while though. Thus after thundering off from Benson and climbing through FL60, I advised Cartoontown Radar that I'd be climbing from South to North over their CTR (top is 3500 QNH) in the climb to FL100 as I had planned my exercise in a nice clear bit of airspace near Moreton-in-Marsh. "Stop climb at FL65" said the voice at the other end. "Negative, I will be climbing to FL100", I answered. "I SAY AGAIN, NOT ABOVE FL65" she repeated, somewhat tersely. "Look, I tried to be helpful by calling you, I am already nearly 3000 ft above your airspace, I am now going to squawk 7000A and change to en-route frequency. Whilst climbing to FL100! Good day to you!" was the response she got....

That's the sort of thing which causes many of us not to use the radio more than is strictly necessary.

[RPMcMurphy]

Ah well, that's that then.

If anyone wants me I'm retreating to the ATC Home forum where all us whinging controllers hang out.

Alternatively try and call me when the big fan on the front stops.

I wasn't ordering anyone to do anything.... just asking for a courtesy call if possible. I happen to like working in Class G; I have a PPL, checked out on tailwheel yadda yadda yadda.

And DFC..... low hour students extending the downwind leg happens. We can only try and reel them in once it has happened, not before. You explain how that can be blamed on the long-suffering tower ATCO, not either the instructor or student themselves.

Ever tried controlling a circuit with a flexwing, pa38, navajo and a light jet all at the same time? It can be done safely but the speed differential dictates that the circuit will be a little wide and often extends out of the ATZ. It happens. If you intend to exercise your god-given right to skirt tight in against an ATZ boundary, be prepared, either with or without a radio call.

Happy (and safe) flying everyone.

[WorkingHard]

As I and others have said here, it is a very small minority of controllers (in the widest context) who do a lot of harm to relations between pilots and ATSUs. "illigal" airmanship is reported so why are "illegal" ATC instructions not reported? We would all benefit.

[neilmac]

Finals 3 Greens-
Yes indeed workload is variable I agree, you quote 'good airmanship' wouldn't that be under the bracket of giving a busy unit a call just outside their MATZ/ATZ? I quoted the known traffic enviroment in my last comment which helps controllers out . Some pilots and ive done this myself , why are ATC restricting me? Its an easy answer......the big picture other peeps fly as well, though under a FIS of course u don't need to comply. My unit has had a/c come on freq saying they have had an airprox and pass their details and all the time your thinking well an info call to us and we would have told you about the traffic, thus avoiding the blood pressure rise! RPMMcfly makes some very good points about ATC workload. A call transitting close to an ATZ/MATZ surely is worthwhile. So in my last comment the example of a GA a/c passing say just outside a fast jet unit ATZ.........what situation would you rather be in, knowing about the traffic or getting bounced by say 4 Tornados doing 400kts, bearing in mind reaction time for scanning/lookout Maybe you should visit a busy ATC unit and see all the different situations that can develop. Being both a GA flyer and a controller gives me a little look at both sides of the coin, which I believe gives me(maybe)? a reasonable understanding.

Happy and safe flying to all

[Final 3 Greens]

neilmac

Some good points in your last post - well put, reasonable and informative - thanks for that.

[Miserlou]

I consider NOT calling a busy ATC unit when you don't have to good airmanship.

If you are listening in on the frequency you think you are the 'unknown traffic' being reported to another aircraft then this is the time to pipe up.

Non-reliance on radio is the key to good airmanship. As pointed out earlier, it is the lowest priority of the three 8's.

[Pierre Argh]

... no problems with "communicate" being the lowest priority

I've just found a nice definition of airmanship which is, "the ability to act wisely in the conduct of flight operations under difficult conditions"

On that basis it would seem to me to be "wise" to "navigate" your aircraft well clear of zones (of all descriptions)... to avoid potential "difficult conditions"... but if for whatever reason you find yourself close to one you "communicate".

Skirting the zone may not be illegal (no problem with that)... however, there are plenty of things that don't break the law, but you'd be stupid to do them. God help us when the law books take away from us the ability to act on common-sense, and be responsible for our actions... but I fear we're moving toward that day.

PS. the reason you cannot report an illegal ATC instruction is because "instruction" to non-complying aircraft in Class G airspace isn't an instruction, just a badly worded request...

[englishal]

Its good to talk....

It doesn't cost anything to say "Hi, I'm here and will be passing 5 miles south, just thought I'd let you know"......if you have a radio.

If I had my way, all G would be replaced by E, then the lower A replaced by D, and airways changed to D up to FL100.......That way we wouldn't be stuck down so low as to worry about flying close to an ATZ.....

[WorkingHard]

Pierre - "PS. the reason you cannot report an illegal ATC instruction is because "instruction" to non-complying aircraft in Class G airspace isn't an instruction, just a badly worded request..."
You missed the point. If a pilot transgresses then SOME (not all) ATSU are only too willing to report for further action. So if some ATC types "transgress" from there comfy and safe working environment, even if it was a "badly worded request" that a tyro accepted as an instruction, why not have the further action applied?
I think the whole point of previous comments, from pilots at any rate, shows there is a belief in partnership. There are just a few controllers who think of a master/servant relationship. Let me tell you - IT AINT SO.

[IO540]

Pierre

This is a very long thread but the answer to your original question is indeed "because you can", and with a decent GPS you indeed CAN.

[Chilli Monster]

If I had my way, all G would be replaced by E, then the lower A replaced by D, and airways changed to D up to FL100.......That way we wouldn't be stuck down so low as to worry about flying close to an ATZ.....

Funnily enough something close to this came up in conversation in work today.

Food for thought. What are people's opinions on an airport with approx 100K passenger throughput per year, with IAP's used extensively by GA for training as well as semi-commercial units, having Class 'E' in the UK.

Now before people scream "Airspace Grab! Don't allow it!" READ what class 'E' means to VFR & IFR traffic.

[bookworm]

Consider my rant on the subject in

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177147&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

to have been posted here too. ;)

[Miserlou]

I disagree on the definition of airmanship.

It is a state of mind at all times from the moment you open the hangar door until you lock it again.

Not making a busy frequency busier with unnecessary courtesy calls is good airmanship.

If you ARE the traffic which they describe to another then make the call because it is relevant.

[Chilli Monster]

Rant noted - but I honestly don't think it's particularly relevant.

Class 'E' is more a psychological approach to airspace management. The IAP chevron is a complete waste of space (and totally pointless as it only depicts an IAP on one end of the runway - we've got them on both!). The line on the map however is a totally different matter - it alerts people that something is happening inside that area.

You only have to look at the number of PPL posts on PPRuNe regarding entry into AIAA's that back this up ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

however, there are plenty of things that don't break the law, but you'd be stupid to do them Like routing airliners through class G?

[bookworm]

The line on the map however is a totally different matter - it alerts people that something is happening inside that area.

Interesting thought. So rather than class E, you'd be satisfied with an "Area of Instrument Activity" or something, which had no legal significance but was prominent on the map as "airspace"?

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm

No - that wouldn't be good enough. It would have to be something that was legally recognisable such as Class 'E' due to other reasons which I cannot go into here. Besides, why introduce something else that people would have to learn about when you have an airspace tool available "off the shelf" as it were.

Also the legally enforceable bit allows VFR with total freedom, but prevents the ludicrous situation you have now that somebody IFR can go straight through an approach, in IMC, without talking to anybody (and believe me they do!)

[Pierre Argh]

Finals Three Greens

Like routing airliners through class G

So what you're really objecting to is someone coming into your playground?

You can't just conjour up a CTZ and Airways. NATS will only approve CAS around an airport if it meets certain criteria. One of these is it must shift a certain number of passengers a year... so while the airport is trying to build up business/passenger numbers they're stuck with just an ATZ and isolated from the National Airspace structure.

As seen above, GA pilots bang on about how they can look after yourselves... three 8's... see and avoid etc, but it seems to me some don't want the responsibility when something bigger and faster comes into the picture especially, dare I say it, if they might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives. make no mistake, that's the game they're playing. I, personally don't have any issue about whether GA or Commercials have priority... in fact I would fight for the right of GA pilots along with the best of them... all are entitled to use Class G, but please do it sensibly?

[Final 3 Greens]

Dear Pierre

You can't have it both ways, either:

(a) it is sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft even if it might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives and equally sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ

-or-

(b) it is not sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft and equally not sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ

So which is it to be? Come on, out with it :}

[rodan]

What a very contrived choice. Plainly, it doesn't have to be either of those options.

It is sensible to route airliners through class G if it is safe to do so, because it avoids the need for more controlled airspace (are we not all broadly in favour of this? Anyone?). It is sensible for light aircraft skirting ATZ's to make themselves known so that they don't get a nasty shock.

What is not sensible is for light aircraft to keep schtum out of a perverse desire to delay IFR traffic and stick one to the big boys, because ultimately it will lead to more controlled airspace. Am I wrong?

[Miserlou]

It cannot be safe to route IFR flights through 'G' airspace unless they are able to maintain own seperation. This just isn't a practical option for an extended period.

Whilst others can fly IMC in class G without a service then there is a serious potential conflict.

The E and D option are sensible and workwell in other countries.

[bookworm]

It cannot be safe to route IFR flights through 'G' airspace unless they are able to maintain own seperation.

In what circumstances are IFR flights ever "able to maintain their own separation" with any level of confidence? There's certainly no evidence that they are able to do so better in class E than in class G. Collisions are invariably in VMC.

[Miserlou]

We often get 'maintain own seperation' both on departure and landing. It expedites traffic flow both in G and A airspace.

[DFC]

Chilli,

Absolutely think that Class E should be provided at every airfield with IAPs and that the figure for having Class D should be set quite high i.e. places like Bournemouth, Southampton, Cardiff, Bristol, Prestwick etc would probably be Class E along with Filton, Exeter, Plymouth, Farnborough etc etc.

One could even place large areas of class E CTAs (base 3000ft) round airfields that provide LARS and these areas would not only ensure that the appropriate level of service was available to IFR flights but would clearly define the areas within which the service is available.

Class E at Bristol would facilitate SIDs and STARs - a big safety improvement.

And all that without having any effect on the VFR pilot's ability.

Perhaps our response to the review of ATSOCAS should be that it should be put within class E airspace! :)

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

Rodan

It is sensible for light aircraft skirting ATZ's to make themselves known so that they don't get a nasty shock. I think you miss my point, there is no requirement to carry a radio in class G, so one must assume that some non radio traffic will be out there, some potentially skirting ATZs by the use of GPS.

Then consider the original question by Pierre Argh and ask yourself why it is so bad for aircraft to skirt ATZs out o f radio contact, when the ATC who manage the ATZs are quite happy to blast off airliners into an environment where non radio traffic is both permitted and known to operate.

It doesn't stack up to me.

If the first post had been worded in a less confrontational manner, perhaps "things we can do to reduce potential traffic conflicts", then maybe I would take a different view.

As it is, the natural human reaction is to skirt an ATZ and switch off the radio next time, whereas fortunately my common sense overrides this and radio contact will be establsihed and maintained.

I don't thank that Pierre's tone is advancing ATC/GA relations.

[IO540]

some potentially skirting ATZs by the use of GPS.

Some more will be skirting ATZs by following a known local feature like a motorway which is known to lie on the ATZ boundary. Doing exactly what they've been taught in their PPL ;)

With a GPS, anyone (including those who don't know every local shed) can do it, and do it accurately.

One question is whether a busy place e.g. Gatwick would actually want somebody doing that to call them up. They are highly unlikely to offer an RIS to a VFR flight; one might get a nominal FIS which will mean little or nothing (to either side) unless a squawk is allocated.

It does puzzle me a little how places like Manston can operate 747s out of there, with so many bimblers around, non-radio and non-transponder. They must wait for the radar to be entirely clear in the relevant area before clearing the departure.

[Chilli Monster]

why it is so bad for aircraft to skirt ATZs out of radio contact, when the ATC who manage the ATZs are quite happy to blast off airliners into an environment where non radio traffic is both permitted and known to operate.

Who says we're happy?

Especially in a radar environment where you can see the traffic. If it's not squawking, or squawking 7000 with no mode 'C' indication you have no option but to treat it as worst case scenario, and hold the departure on the ground, needlessly burning fuel. I'd rather have had the 'skirter' call me so that I can ASK (not tell you notice) whether he wouldn't mind routeing via the overhead or, if they're at a decent level, stop the departure 1000ft below.

(There is something to be said for "what you can't see can't hurt you" ;) )

[helicopter-redeye]

What happens on the day when primary radar is unavailable and secondary only is used ?

This appears to be more common these days.

So no transponder = NO radar presence (or TCAS indication)

[stillin1]

Chill a bit guys, IMHO some of you seem to be disappearing up your own a*ses and losing the big picture

There are laws and there are rules. We know them!

There is also common sense and "best practice".

Why fly right alongside CAS if you do not need to?

Why not talk to the agency concerned if you are v close to their airspace? - it might give them some options with their traffic and you a useful heads-up as to whats about?

It may be delightful to fly without the radio, but you just have to accept that you are losing the situational awareness that talking to ATC gives you

I do not want more CAS, but do not see any point in being bloody minded about my "rights".

Yeh there are a million wot-ifs, thats why we are blessed with the ability to think. Find a sensible solution, don't be the problem.:ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

Chilli

I'm with you 100% - perhaps you could have a quiet word with Pierre and convince him that co-operation, not confrontation, is the best approach.

[ShyTorque]

Stillin1,

"It may be delightful to fly without the radio, but you just have to accept that you are losing the situational awareness that talking to ATC gives you"

I agree. How about making mode C mandatory for all powered aircraft, too? If all aircraft were to show their position and altitude on radar, ATC's job would be a little easier and perhaps make them less anxious to have control over a bigger piece of airspace.

[Final 3 Greens]

Shy Torque

That's fine, but what about gliders? See and avoid is generally agreed to be harder with them too.

And won't Mode S take care of this in the fullness of time?

[robin]

Shy Torque

Wasn't it said recently that experience with Mode S goes against that idea?

The more blips that are on the screen the more stressed the ATCOs become, and, in the case of Mode S, they de-selected the option of displaying them to reduce the workload.

My understanding of this was that as they are only concerned with traffic likely to affect their operations, the Open FIR traffic were 'switched off'.

In my view, ATCOs would prefer a larger airspace prohibited to non-IFR traffic. This would have the contrary effect for PFA type and VFR traffic around the edges, flying in smaller and smaller airspace, put at greater risk of collision, but no-one's problem

[ShyTorque]

F3Gs,

I agree but they have no power supply.

I have been told before that any attempt to make gliders more visible apparently violates their pilots' human rights to be invisible (although they must be given way to by everyone else, of course...!)

Regarding the ATCOs' view; maybe they will advise!

I admit to being rather biased - Mode C for all would make my life a lot less stressful and improve everyone's safety. I operate a TCAS equipped aircraft, usually in Class G. It's much more difficult to plan avoiding action if there is no altitude readout on an alerting TCAS contact, as the azimuth is not reliable.

[Chilli Monster]

What happens on the day when primary radar is unavailable and secondary only is used ?

This appears to be more common these days.

So no transponder = NO radar presence (or TCAS indication)

This is the sole preserve of the military outside of CAS, and is criminal as it lulls the 'customer' into a false sense of security.

In the civil world SSR only operations are only allowed inside Controlled Airspace (it being a known traffic environment anyway). Radar equipped airfields with only an ATZ must go non-radar in this situation, hence the requirement for staff to have a valid Approach Procedural rating.

[Final 3 Greens]

I agree but they have no power supply. Well they always tell us powered pilots that they are better with their feet, so why not rig up a generator to their pedals and let them self power :}

[ShyTorque]

F3Gs

Why not indeed! :ok:

Or a few solar panels?

[Skylark4]

Shy Torque,
I don't think you have ever heard a Glider pilot (or light GA pilot for that matter) claim violation of their human rights as a reason not to carry a transponder. Practicality and cost = yes. The current cost of a mode 'S' transponder equals the cost of many Vintage gliders and a few single seat powered aircraft. The power drain is not compatible with battery operation.
You provide the box at null cost and we will fit them.

Mike W

[WorkingHard]

Can we please just remember the figures here. GA is by far and away the largest number of aircraft in the skies. GA is by far and away the largest number of movements in the UK. GA is by far and away the largest number of licenced pilots. Now if CAT wants or needs something then they should pay for it. If they need MORE controlled airspace then why not rent it by volume so that GA can be compensated by, for example, less fuel duty (something CAT dont even know exists).
Lets all live in peace and harmony and be helpful to each other, and that means CAT and all associated with it helping as well.

[ShyTorque]

Skylark,

"You provide the box at null cost and we will fit them."

So having bought my own transponder and TCAS you expect me to buy you a transponder because you have a low cost aircraft? Greatly enhanced safety is a no cost option for you? Seriously?

I hope this isn't the commonly heard response of a glider pilot fully expecting other aircraft to "see and avoid" him but being totally unwilling to do anything to contribute to his own aircraft's conspicuity because it might cost him something. :rolleyes:

BTW, if you had read my original post on this thread you might have noted that I actually said "powered aircraft". :hmm:

[Pierre Argh]

miserlou

It cannot be safe to route IFR flights through 'G' airspace unless they are able to maintain own seperation

surely its the VFR flights that are supposed to maintain their own separation... IFR traffic relies on basic, age-old principles like the quadrantal/semicircular rule, flying at a standard levels and utilising ATC where available.... it's the VFR pilot who has to keep out of the way, and I think it should be by more than a glancing blow

[WorkingHard]

PA said "it's the VFR pilot who has to keep out of the way"
Where the hell do you get such bright ideas. See and avoid applies to all in any airspace. In class G the difference is there may be no help from radar. Now if you are suggesting that CAT gets priority Pierre, then I think you should return to ATCO (your listing) school.
Where do you work so we can all avoid asking you for a service?

[High Wing Drifter]

Pierre,

In anything upto and including Class D, IFR flights are responsible for maintaining seperation from VFR flights except when being radar vectored.

[Pierre Argh]

IFR flights are responsible for maintaining seperation from VFR flights

This is wind-up right? See and avoid is a basic principle/responsibility... I agree, but just how do you "see" when you're IMC?

I'm not suggesting anyone has priority... but under the definition I have the VFR pilot is responsible for maintaining separation from all other traffic, whilst (I assume) the IFR pilot needs assistance... from the Rules of the Air... maybe ATC... and from VFR pilots staying out of the white fluffy stuff!

[robin]

Sorry - I'm not experienced in this, but are you saying that flying IFR in VMC clear of controlled airspace, that you don't look out of the window?

Secondly, why would you?

[FlyingForFun]

If flying IFR in IMC you of course can't look out of the window for traffic, and must take whatever help ATC can give you to avoid traffic (which may be limited outside of controlled airspace). There is no way of avoiding traffic which doesn't show on radar and isn't talking to anyone.... but if you are in solid IMC, one would hope that any other traffic which is with you in IMC is making use of any tools available to avoid you, too, including talking to ATC (maybe not the same unit as you, though), squawking, flying quadrantals, etc.

However, if flying IFR in VMC, all bets are off - you may well encounter a VFR microlight which does not show up on radar. The pilot will hopefully be looking out, but you'd better be looking out too......

Inside controlled airspace, it seems like it should be a different story. But remember that in Class D airspace IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights. So although ATC will pass you traffic information on VFR flights, they do not have to separate you. (In practice, I don't know of any units who won't separate you from VFR flights, and that includes Class G units when handling inbound and outbound IFR flights - see the other thread about being over-controlled!)

FFF
---------------

[2Donkeys]

Mentioning different classes of airspace makes this sound overly complicated.

The commander of an aircraft has a basic duty to take care of the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. He is expected to use every tool reasonably available to him to live up to that duty.

Regardless of whether he is in class G or class A airspace, that includes keeping a look out in the event that he is in VMC.

It is no more complex than that.


2D

[WorkingHard]

Quite so 2D. Hey Pierre, are you really ATC?

[Pierre Argh]

Workinghard... I don't think I have ever contradicted the regulations reitterated above by 2D... VFR in Class G is fine (my start point for this thread was another matter else and it has moved off on a tangent)

The matter of IFR flights in VMC is complicated. I accept there may be good reasons why the pilot wants to fly iaw IFR irrespective of flight conditions ... but in Class G (s)he better keep a good look out for someone else who has right of way!

But, when an IFR flight in IMC has a close encounter with a VFR flight that has broken the rules of the air by ignoring flight conditions limits and enters or gets too close to cloud... (and it has happened) you'll excuse me if I seem to be getting excited when others say it's OK because it's Class G Airspace and "see and avoid" applies. They're wrong!!!

Interestingly, a bit of research, reveals a subtle but important difference between CAA and UK Military Flying Regulations on flight rules. Under the latter the VFR military pilot has a categoric responsible for separation from other aircraft... wheras the IFR pilot only has the implied responsibility under general rules for safety of his/her aircraft. The CAA regs don't differentiate... hmmmm?

[WorkingHard]

Who (apart from gliders) has right of way in class G?

[Pierre Argh]

Who (apart from gliders) has right of way in class G

...how about airships and balloons for starters... Then the aircraft converging on your right-hand side... the aircraft your overtaking etc etc

Not sure I see your point... seeing as how you challenged me about my qualifications, I'm tempted to ask if you're a pilot? (but that might be seen as petty)

[mm_flynn]

when an IFR flight in IMC has a close encounter with a VFR flight that has broken the rules of the air by ignoring flight conditions limits and enters or gets too close to cloud... - given the context I assume this refers to class G rather than class D airspace.

In the UK in Class G (particularly in the South with class A relatively close to the ground) I have always struggled a little with the VFR/IFR concept. Obviously if you are not in VMC you are flying subject to IFR - But to an outside observer what is different. You probably are too low to be required to observe the quadrantal rule and probably you are cruising above the MSA. You almost certainly don't have an IFR flight plan because you were not going to join an airway (typical of an IMCR flight). But now you can't see and avoid. The controller who thinks you are VMC has IFR traffic that suddenly gets a start when the blip not talking (presumed VMC) gets close to the blip he is talking to and is in solid IMC (see above quote)

[WorkingHard]

Well Pierre I had an unexpected response. Yes we all know you give way to gliders, balloons etc. but your posts at the very least inferred we should be giving way to IFR which has a radar service. I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say so be a good a chap and explain again please. Oh by the way yes I am a pilot (for several decades and ex mil) and not seen as petty at all.

[Pierre Argh]

working hard... please check your personal messages... VMT

[FlyingForFun]

The controller who thinks you are VMC has IFR traffic that suddenly gets a start when the blip not talking (presumed VMC) gets close to the blip he is talking to MM, are you suggesting that people flying IFR in IMC in Class G airspace with an IMC rating don't talk to radar controllers? Of course there is no requirement to talk to anyone in Class G, but I for one would never bimble around inside a cloud without getting as much assistance from ATC as possible, and I would expect the same from other IMC-rated or Instrument Rated pilots.

In most parts of the country, it's possible to receive a radar service which will include a squawk. Even if you are not talking to the same unit as "IFR traffic that suddenly gets a start", the controller working the "IFR traffic that suddenly gets a start" will know who you are talking to from your squawk, and will talk to the controller who you are working to co-ordinate a resolution which suits everyone.

If you really do choose to go around without talking to anyone, or if you are talking to someone who can't give you a squawk (as I often do, since my local unit is primary radar only at the moment), ATC are required to keep any IFR traffic which is receiving a RAS a specified distance from you, and are required to warn traffic about you if the traffic is receiving a RIS. So I can't see how the situation you describe should ever occur.

There are plenty of mechanisms in place to keep IFR traffic as safe as is practically possible, even in Class G airspace, so long as they are available and being used correctly. (I have to admit to not liking flying in IMC outside controlled airspace when these services aren't available, though, but that's yet another tangent that can probably wait for another day.)

2Donks, you said in response to my earlier post:Mentioning different classes of airspace makes this sound overly complicated.

The commander of an aircraft has a basic duty to take care of the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. He is expected to use every tool reasonably available to him to live up to that duty.

Regardless of whether he is in class G or class A airspace, that includes keeping a look out in the event that he is in VMC.

It is no more complex than that.You are quite right, I probably did over-complicate things.

FFF
-----------------

[mm_flynn]

FF,

Pierre clearly does experience IFR traffic which is not squawking based on the comment that I quoted. I agree with everything you say about the separation process and that many/most people flying IMC will be getting a radar service. The 'gets a start' comment was really to reflect the concern that you can sometimes hear on the RT from an airways flight (now in G) when it is told about "VFR" traffic when he is solid IMC.

From a personal perspective there have been a few occasions where I am in IMC moving from one radar environment to another and have been dumped with "radar service terminated squawk 7000" and there has been a considerable gap between units that are open and able to provide a service.

The general point that I was making was more about the very small difference between Instrument Rules and Visual Rules as applied in the UK - and to gently address PA's comment about "breaking the rules of air by entering cloud" which is only true if the pilot isn't properly rated - but from his radar screen nothing will tell him the flight is now IFR if the pilot has not moved onto a radar service.

A good case of the fine line between IFR and VFR is the change over that you make as the sun goes down - you retain your "VFR" squawk but you are IFR and less likely to be talking to someone because many of the LARS units close up shop.