Question For Pilot & Atc

[hamad130]

hi all
my question :
if i am flying in high altitude (FL 310) using "high alt enroute chart" & estabished ON THE AIRWAY . for any reason i wanna change my level to (FL 190) which consedr low & i should use " low altitude enroute chart "
- is there any procedure to trnsfer from high level to low level because the airways & points differnt between high & low altutude



thank u

[songbird29]

The difference between high altitude routes in upper airspace and low altitude routes in lower airspace is a remnant of a distant past. There is not a single operational reason to stick to this difference. It is only maintained for administrative reasons like "we have always done it this way".

I do not envie pilots who struggle with the ensuing problems as explained by hamad130.

[055166k]

hamad 130
not all upper air routes are coincident with airways [lower down].
If you have some charts look up airway L9 in UK airspace with beacon hops STU..BCN..CPT. The upper air route UL9 is a straight line via DIKAS which is to the north of BCN vor. Also there may be different reporting points depending on upper or lower route.[just as you say].....even when they are coincident.

[Lon More]

Whilst agreeing with Songbird that it is a historic thing, it is more often done for an operational reason (e.g. a military area may exist in the upper or the lower airspace which may be active H24 - or even geographical, as in the Alps)

BTW As I'm retired it's been a long time since I looked at a chart, but aren't the upper and lower levels of routes still printed on them?

[songbird29]

In case there is an operational justification to fly other than direct routes below a certain altitude, e.g. when a military area is in the way, there is a good reason to create an alternative route to circumnavigate the area below that altitude. Yet, this is always a local affair, never involving a whole FIR. Another operational reason may be the separation between different flows of traffic, e.g. to separate strategically an inbound stream from the overflyers.
However, a division between upper and lower airspace as depicted on aviation maps is made for the entire FIR. I maintain that I see no operational reason whatsoever to continue with this relic from the past. It has to be regretted that the Euopean Union with its initiative to improve ATM has made a uniform upper/lower division level as one of its action items, which has been uncritically accepted by too many ATC people who should know better. In this way the European Union initiative will be much of a hot air movement. No operational impact but lots of administrative work. Jobs for the boys.
055166k: I understand there is a difference between route L9 with the beacon hops and the direct UL9, which has to be reflected on the charts. I don't know the local circumstances up there, but would you happen to know WHY the lower routes are different from the upper? Is it to circumnavigate a military area, or is it the lack of range of the VORs below a certain flight level (and if so, does that range coincide with the division level between upper and lower - which would be very fortuitous wouldn't it). Or is it true what I am thinking in my most suspicious moments that the authorities have been so little inventive or lazy that they never have adapted the beacon hopping route to new operational or technical advancements?

[Lon More]

It has to be regretted that the Euopean Union with its initiative to improve ATM has made a uniform upper/lower division level as one of its action items, which has been uncritically accepted by too many ATC people who should know better.
The European Union is in this ,as in many other cases, still powerless to override the decisions made by individual states. It was mooted a number of years ago that with the advent of free Skies a re-organised / enlarged "Eurocontrol" would take over the responsibility for all ATC, with the exception of TWR/APP services and that all en-route traffic would fly as directly as possible, subject to constraints placed by sector loading, military traffic etc.. One of the biggest opponents, Belgium.
There the division level was raised from FL195 to FL245. Over the Netherlands, it has been FL300 and FL245 at various times in the last 20 years
The fact that this is accepted "too many ATC people" is not simply a matter of some rolling over and having their stomachs tickled, but a question of them following the decisions made by their political masters.
And I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for ATC management:*

[055166k]

songbird29
Just historic I think. L9 used to be Green 1 which was one of the very first airways. There were several turns, now reduced to one of any significance, which is at BCN vor. Moving airways and the associated re-alignment of regulated airspace is a major head-ache in UK......every glider club, the military, church fete, dog owner, balloon group, bird watcher...in fact hundreds of protesters have to have their say. It is a little simpler in the Upper air, but by no means easy.
Lon More
You touch on a quaint UK tradition......UK loves to have influence and dictate the running of a Europe-wide integrated system.....however the credibilty takes a bit of a knock by not recognising the benefits both operationally and economically of joining Eurocontrol proper.
Perhaps a case of "it's OK for Jonny foreigner but we don't want to join your club thank you......we just want to tell you all what to do".

[songbird29]

Ouf, I must have touched the chip on Lon More's shoulder. But in his statement that politics are part of the reason why we are saddled up with lower and upper airspace LM is absolutely right. I was even moderate to only mention administrative reasons. All in all it underlines my view that there is nothing operational in the artificial division of the air in an upper and lower airspace.

A few factual corrections though.

1. the formal and administrative division between upper and lower airspace in the Netherlands Amsterdam FIR is FL195. It has never been 300 nor 245 in the last 20 years. The levels 300 and 245 were division levels between control by Amsterdam ACC and Maastricht UAC, but they were not division levels between lower airways and upper ATS routes, that division has always been at 195. I can't help it's complicated and for those who think this idiosyncresie can't be true I copy/paste from the Netherlands AIP :
Amsterdam upper control area
Lateral limits: as for the Amsterdam FIR.
FL 660
FL 195

2. Lon More puts much of the blame on poor Belgium. Wrong. Airspace organisation in Western Europe has been a source for power struggles since the years 1960. The struggle went through different phases.
The first and very good plans were to create one single upper airspace for most of Western Europe above FL245 under the control of Eurocontrol. These plans were torpedoed by the UK and France in the mid-sixties. They refused to handover souvereignty. Key-word again for those who think this can't be true: Moroni report.

Belgium and west-West Germany did handover their airspace in the early 70ties but the Netherlands hesitated, to say it mildly. Since France and the UK refused to handover souvereignty over their airspace, why should the Netherlands? Yet, the Netherlands handed over their airspace to Eurocontrol in the mid eighties after a political decision which was loyally executed. In this period Belgium offered to Eurocontrol the handover of its entire airspace, but it was Eurocontrol who refused to accept on the pretext that the international organisation had no experience in terminal areas and approach control. Lack of courage on the side of Eurocontrol one might say, and the agency paid a high price until it was saved by the creation of the CFMU in the nineties.

Today we are in the next stage of European airspace struggles, engendered by the European Union. They have invented so-called Airspace Blocks but nobody knew what they were when the notion of Airspace Block was launched. Although ATC people try their best to put some operational sense in it, the bottom line is that it's again an administrative item. It gets connected to privatisation or semi-privatisation and the hidden agenda is that the bigger ATC organisations in Europe extend their power by taking over the smaller ones. And mind you Lon More, it may also endanger the Eurocontrol Centre at Maastricht which may not escape the covetous eyes of those who see a chance of profiting most from the administrive/political discussions of how to organise an operational airspace.
And I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for ATC management Hurray!

[hamad130]

thank u all:D

[discountinvestigator]

Ouf,
A few factual corrections though.

Belgium and west-West Germany did handover their airspace in the early 70ties but the Netherlands hesitated, to say it mildly.

Hurray!

Germany did not appear to hand over airspace soverignty in the case of the mid-air collision in southern Germany. Firstly, the controller had no licence to operate aircraft in German airspace. Secondly, there were no government to government agreements in place for mutual recognition of medicals, licences, safety management systems, operating procedures, regulation blah blah blah. Thirdly, the German courts awarded damages to BTC for the loss of their aircraft. Fourthly, the "Allied Powers Agreement 1953" seems to have been lost.

Having interviewed Herr LBA in relation to licences to operate as a Maastricht controller, it would appear that they all needed German licences as well as Eurocontrol licences.

When you look at the legal agreements and regulation of Maastricht, you find as many holes as Swiss Cheese. And you know what Prof James Reason said about that.

[5milesbaby]

To add into the debate, alot of the lower routes stay as they are as non-R-NAV a/c still fly them, but the upper routes are moving more into R-NAV only as anly R-NAV equipped a/c are allowed that high, in the UK anyhow.