Why so much Class A around Heathrow?

[englishal]

Why does the Class A airspace around LHR need to be so big? Take LAX as an example, the you can fly almost up to the runways from the North or South before you enter Class B..........Then you just call on the radio and get a transit overhead at 2500' anyway?

:confused:

[JW411]

Simply because America is the land of the free and not a land of the regulated. That is why the FAA is an Administration and the CAA is an Authority.

I was once told that if we applied our separation standards to Trafalgar Square then we could accommodate three pigeons in total safety!

[IO540]

Ah but pidgeons fly VFR! Class A is IFR only :O

The whole lot should be Class C.

But it's a whole different attitude in the UK. Even just across the water from here, in traffic as busy as the LTMA, one can fly VFR right through (usually below but occassionally above) the IFR airliner traffic, in Class D/C, at say 5000ft. Talking to the same IFR controllers (e.g. Brussels Approach) which they are talking to. But here in the UK, there's no chance of getting a service under VFR from London Control. They deal only with IFR traffic on IFR flight plans.

[JW411]

Not true; my father kept pigeons and all of the experienced birds that were allowed to go cross country had EPIRs (Experienced Pigeon Instrument Ratings). They were, of course, banned from entering Class A airspace by the CAA but I have seen them land frequently in the Loft in Cat II conditions.

They were capable of doing CAT IIIB landings but we could only afford one candle.

[AlanM]

Couldn't the pigeons have gone SVFR?

englishal - our jobs would be much easier if it were C or even D airspace. A CAA decision.

[Wycombe]

One of my most "stimulating" moments as a humble PPL has been taking a 172 VFR through the overhead of KSFO (San Fransisco Int'l) at 2000' - with all 4 runways in use underneath me (parallel departures and arrivals), so EGLL could never be so impressive!

[englishal]

Here you go, LAX from 2500', with the traffic displayed on the G1000 (just to make you jealous);)

http://digital-reality.co.uk/lax640480.jpg

http://digital-reality.co.uk/lax2.jpg

http://digital-reality.co.uk/traffic.jpg

[flower]

Perhaps some of you here should take the time to visit several ATC units including TC operations room at West Drayton and see just how busy everyone is. You may then get a glimpse at to exactly why you do not get a service through that airspace.

I don't care how they do it in the USA this is how we do it in the UK, with an extremely high safety record and just ask the airline pilots how relieved they feel to be back talking to "London " ATCOs.

There is no way Heathrow should be anything other than the classification it is, try working it then you may get some comprehension on the topic.

[mazzy1026]

I don't care how they do it in the USA this is how we do it in the UK, with an extremely high safety record and just ask the airline pilots how relieved they feel to be back talking to "London " ATCOs.
Couldn't agree with you more flower, but you have to admit how amazing that technology is - I mean, just look at it :\

English - I have seen LAX like that loads of times, but it's only ever been on my PC monitor on flight sim :{ I shall dream on (thanks for the pics).

Maz :ok:

[englishal]

I don't care how they do it in the USA this is how we do it in the UK, with an extremely high safety record and just ask the airline pilots how relieved they feel to be back talking to "London " ATCOs
It could be even safer if we made the whole of the UK class A ;)

Out of interest, how many big jets fly just north or south of the LHR runways at 1000'......just curious? I suggest that the reason this piece of airspace is A is becasue "PPLs can't be trusted" rather than any other reason.

[Wycombe]

Flower,

Please don't take my recollections as any sort of comment against UK ATC, which is the best in the World. Of course.

Airspace category decisons are made by the CAA, as AlanM has already pointed out.

I am more than aware of the pressures on UK air traffickers and have seen the wonderful job you all do during visits to the TC Ops Room, the D&D Cell, EGLL Tower, EGLF LARS/Tower and Swanwick over the last few years (although that one was on a winters evening and it seemed a bit sleepy ;) )

[slim_slag]

Was on top of a cliff the other day, surrounded by cloud, and hawks were flying in and out of the IMC. Nearest Class A was about 2nm away so I guess they were fine. I wonder how they do it?

flower, you might be able to impress some people with your 'we are Heathrow and have nothing to learn', but it doesn't work with me :) If you work hard then I suspect you are undermanned, not because you do anything more special than they safely do in the US.

englishal, agree with your sentiments, but the LAX surface area has some degree of protection laterally from Hawthorne and Santa Monica. Doesn't matter though, as you have shown very nice pictures of the VFR corridor above which lets you penetrate the class B without bothering any controller. I guess they trust you more there, but LAX doesn't get in the way of VFR light traffic which is the whole point.

Take a look at PHX which is significantly busier than LHR. The surface area there extends about 4nm laterally from the runways, and about 6nm on the extended centreline. It's not that much more in the way than a class D. PHX has roughly 135 square nm of 'positively' controlled surface area, and if it gets in your way you can call up and safely transit it over the approach end of the runways VFR. Rough measurements of the LHR surface area has it extending 8nm laterally, and 12 along the extended centerline. LHR has close to triple the surface area of PHX. For a less busy airport, that is an airspace grab. Make it ICAO class C, or like a US Class B.

[flower]

I wouldn't think for one moment the EGLL ATCOs say they have nothing to learn, they are utterly superb at what they do. Have a look at their airspace though and tell me where you will fit these VFR aircraft. SVFR radar is already available to allow transit of the EGLL zone in specific areas.
We have limited space compared to the US, if we could scrap everything and start again then maybe a better design of airspace would ensue. As it is there is no way with the sheer volume of traffic and the relatively small airspace they have to deal with that the could accommodate a bimbler.

[DFC]

the VFR corridor above which lets you penetrate the class B without bothering any controller

There is why one can over-fly LAX. Try asking them for a random routing that conflicts with either their arrivals or departures.

To be fair, Heathrow give lots of corner cutting short cuts and allow lots of hellis etc operate within the zone. Lots more than some units in Class D.

If anyone whats to try then sketch the SIDS and Approach procedures from the AIP onto a map and then tell us where you would put the VFR corridor. I would be very interested!

Regards,

DFC

[OVC002]

Sadly,

"I don't care how they do it in the USA "

seems to be the prevalent attitude amongst those who have expropriated control of the airspace over the UK.

Any informed observer has to accept that the environment is different here. But if the powers that be promote the idea that there is nothing to be learnt from elsewhere, then nothing will be learnt.

The lesson that should be taught is that airspace is a common resource, It belongs to everyone, not just BA et al. AOPA in the US do the political lobbying to this effect, very effectively it would seem.

As ever, when Government is involved, money talks.

[englishal]

There is why one can over-fly LAX. Try asking them for a random routing that conflicts with either their arrivals or departures.
But you don't??? They are set routes to allow you to transit across the airspace, and I don't see why this could not be achieved in the UK. Is ALL the class A filled with airliners?

There are three ways to get over LAX now:

1) Shoreline / Hollywood park routes. ATC clearance required by Socal
2) LAX Mini Route. ATC clearance required direct from LAX tower
3) Special Flight Rules area. No ATC clearance required so long as you conform to their requirements (Sqwark 1201, less than 140kts, lights on etc......)

[slim_slag]

flower, airspace starts at the ground and goes up into the sky in exactly the same way in both the US and UK. Neither has less airspace than the other. If what you mean to say is urban airport density is greater in one of them, and there is more urban air traffic in one of them I'd agree with you. That would be the in the States.

DFC,

There is why one can over-fly LAX. Try asking them for a random routing that conflicts with either their arrivals or departures.

You try asking for a that random routing when flying IFR into LHR. In my experience US Class B controllers will approve any routing that doesn't make them have to move the heavy iron. Fair enough. Some VFR routes are published to make it easier for all, just like DPs and STARS are published for the IFR world. You might get 'remain clear' from Chicago Approach, but that place is special.

Why is the LHR surface area three times the PHX area?

[Droopystop]

Why is the LHR surface area three times the PHX area?

Is it because everyone flys so close to the zone boundary?:E :E :E

Could the size of LHR airspace be due the need to maintain IFR separtation in the event of a go around? I gather all hell breaks loose if someone goes around at Heathrow.

[slim_slag]

Is it because everyone flys so close to the zone boundary?

Must be the airline pilots not following the ILS :)

Could the size of LHR airspace be due the need to maintain IFR separtation in the event of a go around?

I am guessing the airspace has to allow separation between IFR traffic climbing with one engine out within the controlled airspace, and traffic flying just below the floor of the controlled airspace. So, is the suggestion that LHR needs an extra 200 square miles or surface area to do this, and PHX wasn't designed with this in mind? Americans have a superb reputation in the aviation field, it would surprise me that they didn't think of this. They do use a different method (TERPS vs PANOPS I think) and in a two horse race one must be better than the other.

I gather all hell breaks loose if someone goes around at Heathrow.

Careful what you say, if it is true that all hell breaks loose, it must be the best way in the world to do it :E

[Get me some traffic]

An interesting thread. The one thing that has not been discussed is weather. In the States they have lots of VMC which allows VFR flight. The one thing you can guarantee in the UK is naff weather. When procedures are being designed in the UK, the weather and and its effects are of major concern. Watch what happens in the US when they have dodgy Wx. They tend to operate very much as we do. Controllers do their best either side of the pond.

[Heliport]

Flower

Please don't misunderstand - I have enormous respect for ATCOs at both LHR and LATCC - but one thing you said jarred. "I don't care how they do it in the USA this is how we do it in the UK" That attitude, IMHO, perfectly sums up in just a few words the worst aspect of aviation in the UK.

I've heard variations of it many times when talking to some CAA people who seem to regard America as some third-world country which has just discovered the aeroplane and hasn't yet learned how to manage aviation.

[IO540]

some CAA people who seem to regard America as some third-world country

The above is the current progressive view among self proclaimed intellectuals all over Europe.

Except when America is needed for something....

[englishal]

True, the VFR routes are only available when the weather is VFR conditions (hence the name "VFR routes"). I don't see why the same philosophy couldn't be applied here though, if it's VFR conditions at LHR, then transit will be approved, if it is not VFR, don't bother.

[DFC]

Can everyone who wants a VFR route across the Heathrow zone do some research into the arrival and departure routes and come up with a route that works without as someone said earlier ATC having to move heavy metal?

Try to do it with the current 2500ft TMA base and then again ignoring the TMA but not above 5000ft.

You will do very well.

Luton has a VFR corridor over the top! Do many ask for or use that?

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

Ah, it's the weather! Why do so many Brits go on holiday to Southern California and think the rest of the US is some balmy paradise where everybody walks around in bathing suits drinking margarittas on the rocks to cool down.

Lets look at Chicago O'Hare. If Heathrow had the sort of weather you get in Chicago it would only be open 6 months of the year. ORD's surface area is roughly circular with a radius of 5.5nm. So the worlds busiest airport (LHR comes around 15th in movements) has a surface area of less than 100 square nm. How can Heathrow justify almost four times that amount?

[Droopystop]

DFC,

I was a regular user of the Luton VFR route, but it became increasingly more difficult to get clearance to use it. Most of the time, it was quicker to go round rather than orbiting waiting for clearance.

I don't know LAX at all, but does it have:
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?

Different solution for different problem - a comparison with anywhere else is largely academic.

[englishal]

Can everyone who wants a VFR route across the Heathrow zone do some research into the arrival and departure routes and come up with a route that works without as someone said earlier ATC having to move heavy metal?
Go on then, tell us. As I asked before "how many heavy jets are moved around at 1000' just to the north and south of Heathrow?" I have no idea, but I'm sure there must be a way of fitting in GA traffic without conflicting with heavy metal.

I don't know LAX at all, but does it have:
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?


Weather is academic. If its not VFR, then its not VFR. Believe it or not, it is often not VFR in Southern California.

Heli routes? I'm sure there are more heli movements in the LA basin that probably the whole of the UK.

GA airfields: This should give some idea of the airfields around LAX (plus loads more not "arrowed" on the chart):

http://digital-reality.co.uk/acf/images/vfrlax.jpg

In fact, I have just looked through all the SIDs and STARs for LHR and cannot see one which would prevent low level VFR traffic transiting heathrow.......Unless you have other information to the contrary DFC?

Even the MAPs call for "climb staright ahead to 2000/3000" before the turn, so I cant even see a problem there...?

[gooneydog]

Interesting !!! Is the land of the "World's favourite airspace" also the land of the "World's favourite Airline" >????

[slim_slag]

Ok DFC, just for grins I'll give it a go. I haven't looked at the LHR plates but I'm assuming the ILS is a 3deg glideslope. It doesn't appear to me that other airfields would conflict as there really aren't that many in that area.

VFR transitions would go through a roughly N-S corridor approx 0.5 miles off the approach end of the runway in use. Transition 2000ft AGL, Mode C transponder required. Of course, this would be moot if the surface area was smaller than it is, as then you would just fly around it. If you say it will never work I will refer you to several places where it does.

So, now you tell me why LHR needs such a large surface area.

Droopystop, no offence, but you are quite correct. You don't know LAX at all :)

[AlanM]

The problems are of course set out above, but it all comes down to the fact that it is Class A.

I could get more across the aerodrome if it was Class D. One of the other problems of course is that whilst we can separate visually in the vicinity of an aerodrome, we would have to phone arrivals or departures regarding the traffic so that traffic info can be passed. Sometimes it is simply too busy for that.

What about the congested areas on the ground - anything east of LHR is pretty built up is it not?

If it were Class D, we could even have more than one aircraft routeing BUR-ASCOT at a time! :)

[Fried_Chicken]

Go on then, tell us. As I asked before "how many heavy jets are moved around at 1000' just to the north and south of Heathrow?" I have no idea, but I'm sure there must be a way of fitting in GA traffic without conflicting with heavy metal.

Not Heathrow traffic but you do have Northolt traffic climbing/descending through that level at frequent intervals

FC

[Kolibear]

I flew into Heathrow (as a pax) last night in a BA 767. It had a GPS/moving map in the seatback display so I was able to monitor our progress.

We were put in the Biggin stack at 17:00 as they were changing runway direction at the time. We left the stack at 7000', I guess thats actually FL70, heading west, descending and about 5-6 miles south of Heathrow.

South abeam Heathrow, we were at about 4000', the screen display keeps changing and you only get a snapshot every minute or two.

We turned from base to finals at 12miles, which put us about a mile east of White Waltham and were probably about No. 5 to land.

The zone has to be quite long to accomodate 5 aircraft on finals, maybe it doesn't need to be quite as wide.

If there was a north-south VFR 'tunnel' over Heathrow, say from 1500' to 2500' and 2 miles wide, wouldn't that cause a problem to any jets that have to go-around?

[AlanM]

Kolibear is quite correct - go aronds would be an issue. Whilst go-arounds are not exactly an emergency situation, the Arrivals controller has to talk to the Deps controller to see where the outbound is going.

They then need to talk to TC Heathrow for a heading and level.

There then needs to be deconfliction with Low Level SVFR traffic and Northolt. All whilst continuing to control traffic streaming in.

As for the size of the zone boundary - you will be amazed at the number of times that older Heavies off LHR only just make the required level of 3000ft by Epsom to the South! (some don't!)

[englishal]

The go-arounds may be an issue, however to cite my example of LAX how do they get away with it? VFR traffic directly overhead at 2500, 3500 and 4500.....

I suppose with this 2500' route you are talking to LAX tower, who clear you through literally just before you reach the Bravo boundary (pretty much at the runways). In the case of a go-around, maybe that clearance would be different, though at 3500' you have VFR traffic not in communication with anyone.One method would be to stop go-around traffic from climbing above 2000' until past LHR and have the VFR route set at 2500'. Looking at the SIDs and STARs the traffic mostly climbs straight out to 3000/4000' before turning, so no conflict would exist for arriving and departing traffic during normal operations.

The idea of a VFR corridor would be different from SVFR traffic in that it would mean low workload for the controllers, and easy access by VFR pilots. Again citing LAX's example, to use the special flight rules area (i.e. not in comms with ATC) you must sqwark 1201 and make blind calls on a unicom frequency, transit North at one level and South at another. You could extend the VFR corridor over Northholt as well.

The main thing is that this would be a "VFR" corridor, so not available in dodgey weather. Missed approaches are less likely in good weather (we landed in some crap on Sunday) I would also assume.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is there an element that the width is due to a need to be able to regularly vary routings, and thus avoid any particular neighbourhood having continuous 24/7 aircraft noise?

I get as irate about the amount of controlled airspace in the UK as anybody else, but if a lot of it is to reduce annoyance to the non-flying public, I can at-least see some point in it.

G

[englishal]

Personnally, I would be happy for MORE CAS (well, Delta at least) in the UK with the implementation of proper VFR corridors with no ATC clearance required. It serves two purpose, a) to protect IFR traffic (a good thing) and b) wouldn't impact on the VFR community.

cheers

[FlyingForFun]

Just a small point on comparisons with the USA, and that's the weather.

I'm absolutely all for as much freedom for GA as possible. But how useful would a USA-style VFR corridor be? Englishal gives the example of the LAX corridor, with flights at up to 4500'. I'm not sure there are too many days when a VFR flight along a pre-determined route at 4500' would be possible. Or even 2500', for that matter. I spend lots of time flying VFR at or below 2000' because of clouds higher than that level.

Would people be tempted to push through the corridor regardless, if such a corridor were to exist???

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

[AlanM]

FFF that's another very good point.

OK then - lets start with a blankish piece of paper.

Here are the current ATZ's that need to be avoided...

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52026848.jpg

here are the SID's as they stand for Westerlies (drawn by hand so approximantely correct)

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52026891.jpg

and here are Easterlies (the SID drawn that finishes left is the CPT SID, which is always given a heading and a level - often further to the left of that track, as it has to be knitted into the BIG/OCK traffic descending downwind)

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52026890.jpg

And finally, rough routeing of Northolt inbounds. (they also have circuit traffic and outbounds of course!)

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52026849.jpg

So - let's assume that Class D is granted (yipppeee!!! :)) - anyone want to suggest a route and a level? (I will draw your suggestions on for you and explain any potential conflictions)

[mm_flynn]

FFF

I would agree with you. Because of the UK airspace structure and licensing there seems to be a casual approach in GA in switching between VFR and IFR flying (for appropriately rated pilots in suitable aircraft) which could lead to people pushing through VFR corridors in IMC weather. In addition, my experience of flying in the NY TRACON area is that popup IFR clearances are readily accommodated whereas the infrastructure doesn't really seem available to do this in the UK - putting more pressure on people pushing through a VFR corridor in sub-VMC conditions.

I agree with the general principle of Englishal and others that the US airspace structure (and possibly the technology) seem to allow the control to happen in a smaller controlled area with more ability to handle transits of this smaller airspace. However, on the flip side there is technology (the mode-C veil and probably other behind the scene systems), considerably greater class D airspace (around every airport with a tower) but much greater flexibility to access this airspace (just two way contact for class D) and Class E 'everywhere' which requires a clearance to enter IFR - so none of this IFR in IMC without any ATC service or ATC having to attempt to provide ATSOCA to IFR traffic.

It is a very different system and I suspect that to get close to the US flexible control model there would need to be a strong push to chuck out the entire basis of UK airspace and start again.

[englishal]

I think that if this a "VFR only" route, "Mode C required, sqwarking 7001" then it would be adheared to. ....or it should be, blatantly breaking the rules should have serious repocussions.

Besides, it could even be broadcast on an ATIS somewhere, "Heathrow VFR route open" or "Heathrow VFR route not available".

As for routing, directly N or South at 2500 should work?;)

[slim_slag]

Yes, it's VFR only. I'm not one for dragging pilots over the coals but if they took a chance and it wasn't VMC I'd have their licence. Clearance required also, although I don't think there is any problem with go arounds in VFR with mode C, the controller will need to be in control.

Those are great diagrams AlanM, thanks for taking the time to draw them. I think they bear out englishal's claim that there is no jet traffic at 1000ft just north and south of Heathrow. What is the minimum climb gradient you expect/require when departing?

[AlanM]

Min climb out is 243ft/nm

As I said - not everyone makes that.

How often can you guarentee level at 2500ft?

Also, IF there was a go-around - it may be stuck below the VFR crosser, and end up going outside CAS north towards Elstree or Mig Alley nr Ockham.

I am not saying it is impossible - just hard!

[PPRuNe Radar]

"Mode C required, sqwarking 7001"

Squawking 7001 denotes a low level military climb out aircraft. You really don't want a Tornado doing a low level weather abort climb out in the London TMA around LHR do you ?? :p

I agree that the UK should take the best of various airspace systems throughout the world and adopt them for UK conditions, wherever they might be from. I also think that the glide clear rule is an important one to consider for any corridor, with as much weight as any 'separation' problems. Time for that clean sheet of paper is well overdue !!

[rustle]

Time for that clean sheet of paper is well overdue !! Especially now that 05/23 is consigned to the dustbin - there's no excuse not to have a North/South route...

[average bloke]

As I presume everyone is talking about light singles it is interesting that noone has mentioned 'Rule 5'. By my reckoning you would need to be able to glide about 3-4nm to abide, which puts any suggested route for your average spam can at about 3000' minimum.

Personally I am not convinced of a need to endanger commercial traffic because someone thinks it would be fun to fly over LHR. And before anyone criticises me on that one, it certainly wouldn't make it safer, and more planes in the area must by default increase the risk of an incident/accident.

Besides, there is always plenty of VFR traffic in the various control zones in the south east. On a good VFR day I normally hear a couple of infringements a day whilst out flying.:E

It would also be a great opportunity for terrorists to access the airport.....

[Warped Factor]

Bit controversial but given the rate of CAS infringements in the London area, four serious ones today alone, can GA be trusted to cope with any such corridor were it to exist? The benefit of the doubt is not there at the moment.

Alan, you've missed out the CPT departure on easterlies which does a 180deg turn on departure and will happily take out any transitting VFR traffic.

If the route was at 3,000ft or above where would the VFR traffic coming from the south climb to that altitude or from the north descend without also affecting Gatwick departures? Same on the north side with Northolt airways arrivals and departures and Luton traffic.

With the current Heathrow, Gatwick, Northolt, Luton route structures and interaction there simply isn't, imho, any workable options.

If you want to route north/south over Heathrow, buy a helicopter ;)

WF.

[AlanM]

Mike I thought I had mentioned that above the Easterly SID graphic.

Oh - and on the Easterlies SID map:

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52026890.jpg

The part of the Heliroute H3 between THORPE and TEDDINGTON is closed as it is not spearated from departure. Also, H9 needs a "southbound check" put on for southerly departures.

Ironically - Heathrow is the only CTR I have ever heard of that has a separate frequency and controller for the low level traffic. This is a huge drain on resources at TC - and at airports like Stansted you are just told to remain outside CAS if they are busy.

I think that each flight would need so much co-ordination it would be a drain on resources, and detract from the primary task of the ATCO. (shifting the IFR paying traffic).

As said above, I will agree to the controlversial statement that there are far too many people who fly and have difficulty flight planning and avoiding CTRs who couldn't be trusted to follow the rules and exact routeing.

There are enough helicopters that get it wrong just now - and questionable flying like the LCY diversion last week.

Sorry - back to the "far too difficult" tray me thinks - just to get people the opportunity to fly over heathrow.

[IO540]

Would it be stating the obvious that the SIDs etc at the American airports are probably designed in the first place to allow the VFR transits?

As regards poor navigation, I am sure the average Yank in his wrecked C172 is no better at map reading than the average Brit in his wrecked C172. This is why the Yanks need to be in 2-way radio contact and carry a Mode C. You won't have problems with nav if you mandate radio contact and Mode C.

What the UK does have is a strong culture of either not carrying or - often with an instructor aboard - switching OFF the transponder.

Plus a culture of flying non-radio, encouraged entirely understandably by having "services" such as London Info which offers zero useful traffic service. PPL students are heavily trained to call up London Info to practice their radio calls, and I bet that most of those (few) that hang in there post-PPL give up on this as soon as they start going places, realising it's just work for nothing. If pilots were able to get a radar service they would use the radio more and there would be an opportunity to prevent potential infringements.

The UK anti-GPS culture, which I am convinced is a major cause of stupid nav errors, will also take a very long time to wear off.

[rustle]

Must admit when I wrote my 05/23 comment I hadn't taken Gatwick or Luton into account :O

Lots of talk about LAX, but would a better comparison be JFK?

There are three large CAT airports within that region as well as a large conurbation -- similar to the Heathrow/Gatwick/Luton(Stansted) congestion we have here.

Do JFK allow VFR transits?

[BEagle]

anyone want to suggest a route and a level

FOS to CHT. Northerly at 1500 ft LTMA QNH, southerly at 2000 ft LTMA QNH. But I haven't checked any Rule 5 'glide clear' problems that might cause.

SVFR in Class A. Although that would be a problem for non-IMC rated pilots due to their licence privilege restrictions unless a 'notified' route limit was applied. I suggest 5 km.

Mandatory SSR with Mode C.

[strafer]

It would also be a great opportunity for terrorists to access the airport.....
And do what exactly?

Perhaps it would just be easier to ban all GA movements altogether, thus denying terrorists a 'tool' which they've never considered using.

[englishal]

Personally I am not convinced of a need to endanger commercial traffic because someone thinks it would be fun to fly over LHR.
It's not a case of "Fun to fly over LHR", although it may be a for a few times, its a case of getting from A to B in the most economical, most direct route. I gather that many GA pilots in the UK are simply "bimblers" who are happy to go up for an hour and view their house again from 1500'. There are some though who would actually like to use an aircraft as a means of transport, and these VFR corridors would allow this (lets apply this to Class D zones as well).


I would have thought that having VFR corridors would aid safety. If its a case of go through the corridor or skirt close to CAS which may likely cause infringements. Even in the USA you often don't have to talk to anyone to go through these routes. Maybe US pilots have better training than ones over here?

Pretty much all US airports have these routes, I haven't got the info but I think JFK also have a published route, though you must be in comms with ATC and transponding a certain code within 25nm.

Oh well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so I give up.

At New York's JFK International, landing fees are based on gross weight, and pilots pay $2.95 per 1,000 pounds gross weight.

Cheers

[slim_slag]

The way I look at it, small planes were here before jets and all this surface area just gets in the way, however I recognise that there has to be some to protect large airports. If LHR didn't have such a huge surface area then it would be moot as we would just fly around it.

rustle, New York doesn't really compare with London. EWR, JFK and LGA are much closer together than LHR, LTN, STN and LGW. And anyway, as you asked there is a VFR corridor up the Hudson river, and if you don't like that you can fly over the top.

There are Class E VFR corridors through the Class B at San Diego. No radio contact is required with SOCAL or SAN tower to fly these, and they obviously don't cause a problem with the jets. Mode C required of course so jets on a go around know where they are and controllers can do what they are trained to do.

AlanM, this is good stuff, nice to see controllers explaining things to us small fry. That climb gradient is pathetic, I could probably beat that in a fully loaded C150. I will have to read up on things before my next question...

(edited to replace transition with corridor, as you don't actually transit Class B in New York, you fly under it)

[Warped Factor]

Alan,


Mike I thought I had mentioned that above the Easterly SID graphic.

The two southbound SIDs you've drawn to me are the SAM and MID. The CPT dep, if it were to fly the SID rather than be given headings, makes a sharp 180deg right turn on dep from 09R and goes WOD then CPT. It may be vectored on that track or it may be taken a bit further south depending on the arriving traffic.


englishal,


It's not a case of "Fun to fly over LHR", although it may be a for a few times, its a case of getting from A to B in the most economical, most direct route. I gather that many GA pilots in the UK are simply "bimblers" who are happy to go up for an hour and view their house again from 1500'. There are some though who would actually like to use an aircraft as a means of transport, and these VFR corridors would allow this (lets apply this to Class D zones as well).

I'd argue that there's next to no time to be saved for anybody by just having a corridor over Heathrow. Whether you fly round the zone to get from A to B or use a corridor there's a fair amount of dog legging to be done and any time or mileage saved is almost insignificant.

The only corridor that would make any sense to me is one that starts south of Gatwick and ends north of Luton and so would represent a true time and hassle saving route for anyone on a significant cross-country rather than just a bimble in the London area.

BEagle,

FOS to CHT. Northerly at 1500 ft LTMA QNH, southerly at 2000 ft LTMA QNH. But I haven't checked any Rule 5 'glide clear' problems that might cause.

That would really be a non starter, especially if you want it to be Class A and SVFR. There's no acceptable separation there from easterly arrivals or westerley departures and missed approaches so the airport would pretty much stop with anything on that route (as it does when folk try doing it without a clearance occasionaly) ;)

Any route would really have to go directly over the airfield.

slim,

The way I look at it, small planes were here before jets and all this surface area just gets in the way, however I recognise that there has to be some to protect large airports. If LHR didn't have such a huge surface area then it would be moot as we would just fly around it.

The London Zone has been reduced in size over the years, it used to extend at least a couple of miles further east and west a number of years ago.

It is unlikely to reduce further to the east nor to the north while Northolt is open. To the south even some modern jets barely stay inside CAS as they depart. If there was to be any reduction it would probably only be possible by another mile or two to the west.

What the Zone needs is a re-classification from A to something else more multi user friendly.

WF.

[slim_slag]

OK, have taken a look at TERPS and it has an even lower required climb gradient than AlanM says is in use at heathrow. So, taking my earlier question about O'Hare with it's 6nm surface area, from my amateur hack reading it appears to be possible by TERPS for an aircraft to depart O'Hare and then leave the Class B at less than 1500ft AGL.

But then it will enter Class E, which is still controlled, so visibility minima apply. There is also a requirement to have a mode C within 30nm, so any light traffic will be squawking altitude.

The FAA are quite happy with VFR and IFR aircraft being in Class E together with only one talking to a controller, and it would appear to be a possibility at O'Hare. There are lots of Mode C regulations though which mean in practice the light aircraft will be visible on radar or TCAS. In practice most turbines climb out at rather more than 200ft/nm, so it is pretty unlikely that you will be flying around ORD in your spamcan and meet a departing 777 head on.

Heathrow surface area has been designed to keep VFR traffic away from IFR traffic full stop, which is why it is so large (to my amateur mind). In also seems that it might be even more dangerous at LHR, as AlanM says some heavies don't make the required climb, and they could meet a light aircraft without a Mode C transponder on as it's not required.


Difference in attitude by respective regulators, which is what others had said, and probably isn't going to change. Interesting thread which makes one think about it. Seems Mode C is a crucial technical regulatory difference.

[Warped Factor]

slim_slag,

Given the volume of protest over Mode S transponder carraige, I don't think there would be much support amongst the GA community for a simple Mode C veil either.

Regarding my thoughts about reducing the Zone size to the west, I doubt if there is actually room for it to come in much further at all actually given the ILS descent profile.

I still think a change in classification of the Zone from A to C or D is the best way forward.

WF.

[DFC]

Alan M,

Would it be too much to ask for you to draw both the Easterly and Westerly scenarios plus the missed approaches to all runways plus the procedural tracks that an R/T fail aircraft will fly from the hold to establish on the ILS for each runway. :)

The place to go for something like that on a nice big wall chart is actually an estate agent in Uxbridge - they get them from the council for noise reasons when BA Captains want to purchase a local pad to use pre-early morning departure! :D

The problem with allowing flights to transit a corridor with no R/T provided they have a mode C is - how can the non r/t pilot know that the mode C is actually working and how can ATC know that the level indicated is actually correct without verification.

The idea of a corridor from South of Gatwick to North of Luton would be interesting. Since most of the IFR routings below FL100 force pilots to route round the outer edges of the TMA and not just the LL zone, some IFR flights might be very interested in taking that short cut! (change to VFR for the period of the transit).

The comment about making the CTR class D I believe is going down the wrong road because it advertises something that may not actually be available (random routings at random levels by VFR flights).

However, the point regrding SVFR separation on the BUR-Ascott route brings me to a partial solution - Retain Class A airspace. However, establish a class D corridor or corridors from SR-30 to SS+30 each day along those routes. Basically everything would remain the same except for the requriement to separate SVFR flights even when the weather is VMC. Ease workload - increase capacity.

Make a pre-departure FPL and pre-departure slot time for the corridor mandatory (all done by an online computer booking system) and hey - ATC don't have to separate, can predict what the loading is and restrict it to a sensible level. Too much hassle? - But you do want this ability to transit LL zone for the benifits it gives in getting from A to B rather than a simple jolly/ freedom of the air issue don't you?

Regards,

DFC

[AlanM]

DFC

I will try and do something later...... but the thing about the published missed approach is that it is often superceded by the deconflicting headings and levels that are needed to separate the go-around and departure.

As for the 3000ft transit - that would put you into the LTMA Class A CAS of course - and you can't only fly IFR there - so not only the zone but the LTMA would need changing.

Slim - you would be amazed at the lack of rate of climb! Wait for a hot day, with a wind NE and sit at OCK at 2.4A. See how the A340s scrape the zone at 2900/3000ft. (Some have A340s have kept 160kts until about 20nm into the SID to get a better ROC)

Mike - good point - I will get it drawn on.

I don't think that the FOS-CHT route would work - as all Northolt departures climb and maintain 3000ft initially. (there is no room to climb them early)

Any suggestions on Westerlies then? :)

OK - here\'s a thought:

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52060645.jpg

If you either got rid of the SW corner (OCK-WOD) or made it Class D - it would help Farnborough out as they have a lot of traffic squeezed into the ILS area. (also little uses it and little environmental impact)

The zone to the E & W is 12nm from LHR. At the 8nm point to the WEST - make it Class D up to 1000ft or possibly 1500ft - allowing traffic to route BUR-ASCOT as they do now (at the moment of course we cannot have opposite direction traffic there)

All this would be fairly easy to implement.

Any other ideas?!?!! :):)

[holyflyer]

As a West Londoner and PPL the following is a suggestion only ( will probably be shot down ... but hey ho):

When LHR is on 27R/L arrivals
Not below 2000-2500' (ie passing over the top of inbounds & helis)
Utilising all open spaces to comply with rule 5 as best as possible although even then your options are limited

Route 1

Stanmore Station - Northwick Park - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 + GWR) - Hounslow Heath - Sunbury Lock

Route 2

Denham - Northolt Apt (Overhead) - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 +GWR) - Richmond - Caesars Camp

[slim_slag]

I can believe you AlanM, but is their rate of climb constant? How far out are they when they reach 2000AGL? There would be room there for VFR traffic to be beneath them at >1000AGL and give 500ft separation with the heavy (which is what I've had several times in US Class B).

WF, the problem as I see it with the Mode S deal is that it's being forced on people (probably by airlines in the background) and nothing is being given in return. In the US you can get a TIS, and as engishal recently showed, it's pretty good. So there is an incentive to put it into your spamcan.

There is a huge incentive to put Mode C into your US spamcan. It gives you access to huge amounts of Class E and is probably the biggest reason that US airspace is so accessible. It wouldn't be safe to have light aircraft in all that Class E without Mode C. It also makes it possible to shrink the Class B to reasonable dimensions as you have to have Mode C by regulation to fly close to it. I wouldn't be too sure that people round London would refuse to put Mode C in, if they got something like a US airspace structure in return.

People in Cornwall could carry on as they do now.

It will never happen of course.

[AlanM]

No shooting down - just generally intersted in what you think might work. I think it is best to transit at roughly 90 degrees to the Final Approach track though.

Here is LHR and Northolf INBOUNDS only with levels as per a 3 degree GP (Won't even start on visual/SRA approaches!!)

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/52061211.jpg

Feel free to draw your own plans on here!

[Vino Collapso]

Hmmm!

I quite like the look of following H9 at 2,000 feet ;)

Vino

[holyflyer]

Many thanks for the profile map on the approaches - checking against multimap it would probably be possible to do a north-south route crossing both the LHR and Northolt pproaches at the 4.5 mile mark and still utilise the open spaces available in West London. Crossing corridor could be 2000-2500.

[englishal]

Nice pics Alan, you've obvioulsy put a lot of effort into this.

My suggestion is still directly overhead at say 2500' as its the safest place to be. Approach traffic is below you, departing / en-route traffic is above you or to the east / west and the only time a problem may occour is during a missed approach. Still you could avoid a conflict by limiting MAP traffic to 2000' and then they would pass 500 below any VFR traffic, which is perfectly safe. You could then as Vino points out head directly over Northolt for the same reasons, ok it means a dog-leg which would be best to avoid as a VOR radial could be used as a backup to visual nav.

I'd say that Mode C would be required and a special code sqwarked, but other than that no ATC contact required. I think if you start getting into filing slot times and stuff like that, then you might as well not bother. We'd also have to trust pilots to behave in an appropriate manner and they are indeed flying the correct altitude on the correct QNH.

Hey, here is a new idea, how about a corridor transiting all of london at a high level (FL100 or something)? Class D, ATC and Mode C required?

;)

[AlanM]

Hey, here is a new idea, how about a corridor transiting all of london at a high level (FL100 or something)? Class D, ATC and Mode C required?

Hey steady on old chap! Lets get the first thing sorted first!

There is no way the CAA would let you in wothout calling ATC - you still need traffic info if standard separation is not being applied (as does the IFR) - and it is a requirement that Class D VFR flights are in ATC contact.

The routeing you suggest may work on Westerlies - but easterlies would be a little trickier because of the CPT SIDs that as Mike describes turn right onto 240degree ish from 09R and normally climb slowly (the majority of CPT deps are heavies)

Have a look:

http://upload.pbase.com/image/52065711.jpg

Oh, and Actually you can route through the stacks at FL100. You just need to be IFR and file a plan. (you pay - then there's a way!!! :))

So - you just need to bang a letter off to DAP and ask for Class D instead of Class A in the LHR zone.

In all seriousness, it is not us that defines the airspace - we just react to the rules as layed down by the CAA.

Good luck!

[Pat Malone]

One of the problems with the width of Heathrow's Class A is that it creates an unnecessarily narrow gap between the Heathrow and Gatwick zones, thus compromising safety.
I used to instruct at Redhill and was acutely aware of the choke points to the north of us. On a busy day it could be pretty terrifying. One of these days there will be a collision in what Alan refers to as 'MiG Alley'. And yet for several miles north of that line due west from Banstead, there is a large swathe of sanitised Class A in which I suspect few if any commercial movements have ever flown.
We all agree that the leisure fliers who use Heathrow (and more than 70 percent of them are flying for fun) need protection from general aviation (where more than 70 percent of movements are business-related or flight training). But we don't have the balance right.

[Warped Factor]

Pat Malone wrote:

And yet for several miles north of that line due west from Banstead, there is a large swathe of sanitised Class A in which I suspect few if any commercial movements have ever flown.

You'd be surprised Pat, especially when there's a missed approach...maybe take a look at the 27L missed approach procedure...

WF.

[n5296s]

Just to backtrack to the LAX discussion for a moment... not only can you overfly LAX, you can even land there. I've been in there twice in my 182, once on a perfect VFR day (but on a IFR flight plan) and once in typical Socal IMC. btw the weather at LAX is often IMC especially in the morning. I had a short hold and some vectoring that time, but nothing dramatic.

It is *really* cool taxiing among all the 747s etc at LAX, especially if they land you on the northern runways since the GA terminal is on the south side. I'm pretty sure that both times mine was the only piston aircraft on the whole airport.

It isn't even expensive... the airport doesn't charge, and the FBO charges something like a $40 handling fee (and you can't get 100LL there, so you need to plan around that).

otoh although you can fly alongside, and sometimes over, SFO with no problem (I do it all the time), landing there is expensive (~$250 I think) so I've never done it. (Also since my home airport
is only 25 miles from it, I've never had any reason to).

n5296s

[englishal]

$40 handling fee
Think its $20, but they have been known to waive it if you're just stopping to pick someone up (try that in the UK!). Best to request 25L ASAP else there is a lot of taxying ;)

JFK is cheap, but apparently if you land during "peak hours" then you get a $100 surcharge. Wonder if its the same with SFO...?

Cheers

[Pat Malone]

Warped Factor:
I'm talking about 2000 feet - about 1500 agl. Have you ever had a heavy at 1500 agl over Banstead?

[foghorn]

$40 handling fee

Fairly quiet regionals in the UK charge that (LBA and BOH spring to mind). That's on top of a similar amount to land :mad: .

[DFC]

Alan M,

The Class D to the west looks good.

However, rather than cut off the SW corner making it class G, I would cut it off the London CTR and create a Class E CTR for Farnborough that takes up that airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[Warped Factor]

Pat malone wrote:

Warped Factor:
I'm talking about 2000 feet - about 1500 agl. Have you ever had a heavy at 1500 agl over Banstead?

Not on purpose! :eek: :)

[FlyingForFun]

and it is a requirement that Class D VFR flights are in ATC contactTrue, but it's possible to create exceptions. For example, the Manchester Low Level Route is Class D, but no contact with ATC is required to use it as long as you comply with certain rules (clear of cloud, in sight of surface, max altitude 1250', min viz 4km, and either transitting north/south through the zone or to/from an airfield in the zone).

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

[AlanM]

I think a route low level is a world apart from one passing 1nm close to departures/go-arounds etc and over the top of inbounds.

Sadly, I doubt any of it will happen..... there are no current plans that I am aware of to downgrade to Class D

[PPRuNe Radar]

There actually is a plan for Class A and D to disappear in time when the new ECAC 'One Sky' programme kicks in :p . The question is how long it will take for everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet in Europe. Target dates are around 2010.

Here's the simplistic version for Phase 1 (doesn't include Restricted Areas or Temporary Segregated Areas which will cover Danger Areas, etc). I guess it will be for the airspace planners to grasp the nettle then and decide which airspace fits in to which classification.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/atco10w/ecac.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/atco10w/ecac1.jpg

[slim_slag]

Looks like the current US airspace structure.

[slim_slag]

And if everything that flies has to have Mode S, why are they saying there will be "U" airspace?

[rustle]

And if everything that flies has to have Mode S, why are they saying there will be "U" airspace?Elementary Mode S doesn't send "intentions" data, so whilst you might know where something is now, you don't necessarily know where it will be in 5 minutes.

Therefore it is "Unknown" in this context.

As always, AFAIK ;)

[slim_slag]

That would be "K" airspace then, all the way to the surface.

[DFC]

Loking at the diagram and recent changes to the European Airspace Structure, it seems likely that N = Class C (with no VFR above FL200 as per ICAO SARPS).

Since U is class G, the only class left open to debate is the K.

Will it be class E (communication not always required eg VFR) with a requirement for appropriate transponder?

However, it seems clear that the London TMA and the London CTR will probably end up class C removing the requirement to separate VFR transits from VFR transits but keeping the requirement to separate them from the IFR flights.

Just one other observation. This topc generated lots of suggestions and questions. The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though.

Regards,

DFC

[Decisive Attitude]

This may not be the most strict of truths, and certainly I hope somebody can provide a reference to confirm or refute it, but I was led to believe that the new airspace structure wouldn't fit into the current ICAO airspace classifications.

I had once assumed the same as DFC, in that Class 'N' would be provided in reality by Class C, etc. However, a chappie I once spoke to who really ought to know about such things declared that this was not so. Class 'N' really will be Class N, likewise for 'K' and 'U'. In essence, a completely new structure with the rules of operation created to suit.

For anyone who doesn't understand DFC's reference to Class C above FL195, there is an old consultation paper here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_ERA_Consultation_DFL_FL195.pdf). However even that seems to hint at using Class C above FL195 merely as a standard, cross-nation stopgap until the complete, joined-up SES becomes a reality.

I would be interested to know what the real intentions are w.r.t. the airspace classifications. If only because the United States, over many years, have been pressured by the wider aviation community to adopt all the ICAO standards. Over time they adopted the Class A-G airspace classifications, and even adopted the standardised TAF format (although they still insist on using different units of distance). For Europe to then abandon the ICAO airspace classifications and 'do our own thing' seems to me to be somewhat counter to the ideals of global harmonisation.

I also have a slightly cyncial doubt that the new airspace structure won't reduce, in some way, the freedoms currently enjoyed by some sectors of the European aviation fraternity - but that's another issue.

Just curious,
DA

[rustle]

That's my understanding too -- the 7 classes disappear, and the 3 replace them.

Shortly thereafter the 3 become 2 in the grand scheme. (Known and Unknown or some such)

[Pat Malone]

DFC writes:

"The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though."

I presume by that you mean me.
I'm not an AOPA man, clown - apart from being a member. I don't speak for them, I have no official function, although like thousands of others I support their aims and I give them a break on publishing their magazine.

Your conclusion-jumping and comfortably anonymous snide claptrap does you no credit. I don't speak for them, I speak for me. No suggestion about the airspace? Have someone who can read run through it again with you.

[DFC]

Pat, you miss the point.

Statements like;

"We all agree that the leisure fliers who use Heathrow (and more than 70 percent of them are flying for fun) need protection from general aviation (where more than 70 percent of movements are business-related or flight training). But we don't have the balance right.". Do nothing for GA's cause in cases such as these.

and "we" do not agree!

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

Rustle,

Shortly thereafter the 3 become 2 in the grand scheme. (Known and Unknown or some such)

Back to my Mode S comment. If everything is required to have Mode S then ATS will accurately know the position of everything that flies. The only other factor is whether its intentions are known to ATS. As that can only have two possible answers, there can only be two possible classes of airspace. There cannot be any Class U and class K has to go to the surface. So sounds to me that one hand of some regulator doesn't know what the other hand is doing.

[Pat Malone]

DFC:
What the hell has my comment got to do with whether or not you join AOPA? My response is "why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation"? What sort of random drivel is that?

[rustle]

slim, we did discuss this a while ago here (http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1129694#post1129694)

So it may be that ICAO are changing the rules rather than Eurocontrol -- so the US will have to change too if they want to be ICAO compliant (or file a difference ;))

[slim_slag]

I don't read old threads because I probably said something stupid. Well, if the airspace proposed is an ICAO thing, at least the Americans already have something similar so it wont need to change much over there.

[englishal]

so the US will have to change too if they want to be ICAO compliant
I like that one....

:}

[rustle]

I like that one....Thought you might ;)

[DFC]

There cannot be any Class U and class K has to go to the surface

That depends on what a particular country decides to do with aircraft such as microlights, powered parachutes and the likes.

Remember that there is a process moving down the road of deregulating single seat microlights. If they are deregulated then they will not have mode S.

Thus to cater for those pilots, it would be impossible to have no airspace where uncertified unregulated airfraft could operate.

Of course such unregulated aircraft would be limited to say that country's airspace.

That I believe is why the provision is in there. Of course some countries may decide not to use it and ground everything without mode S - but some will not. The choice is available.

Regards,

DFC