Olympic airspace validation

[Herr Miss]

Does anybody know how the simulations for the olympic airspace went? I understand there were some big issues left to resolve.

[ZOOKER]

Many hurdles still to overcome?
A few years ago, EGCC handled the Champions League football thingy.
About 70,000 Italians turned up over 2 days in about 200 extra airliners and 60 biz-jets.
No simulations were laid on, we just did it.
Like the ignition of The Olympic Flame, in ATC terms, this is just a flash in the pan.
As the late Ron Ridler would have said,....."Shut up and get on with it"!

[anotherthing]

Upwards of 200 HofS flights alone, never mind passengers... then the estimated 1000-1500 extra VFR flights a day.

Slightly different than the Champions League.

New airspace designed to deal with it all, airspace that already suffers proportionally more infringers than any other in the UK.

Not exactly a flash in the pan Zooker, and nothing like the footy.

As for the Sims, I believe they have actually been going pretty well, with SRG happy too...

[ZOOKER]

Only jesting folks,
I guess Farnborough will have it's work cut out too. Great shame they never built Maplins back in the 70s, what with this and all the development east of Tower Bridge. It would have made Clacton interesting.
Plenty of parking space at Fairford, or do the games clash with RIAT? The MOD could do with a few extra pounds in the Kitty. O.K. it is the wrong side of London, but has good links to the M4.

[2 sheds]

I did my University dissertation looking at the inflexibility of London's major airports coping with additional movements during the Olympic Games.

Didn't look at airspace but as far as runway capacity goes, Heathrow and Gatwick have got their hands tied so to speak.

Luton, Stansted, Southend, Biggin, Oxford etc... are the ones having to essentially bail them out.

Brilliant deduction - and they say a university degree is not what it used to be!

2 s

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I still can't believe it...........

[250 kts]

He could be paying £9k a year to come up with that.:rolleyes:

[eastern wiseguy]

I still can't believe it...........


Me neither...I thought Paris had it in the bag:)

[Brian 48nav]

As I said to No. 2 son recently, you lot have got management over a barrel.
Refuse to do simulation on a day off unless there are some really good 'sweeties' in return. Making AAVAs pensionable for a start!

IIRC we all got extra for Dec31st 1999 because of the fear of the dreaded 'Millenium Bug'.

[anotherthing]

Luton, Stansted, Southend, Biggin, Oxford etc... are the ones having to essentially bail them out.
Not exactly 'bailing out' the major airports.

Bailing out indicates helping the major airports. Nothing is further from the truth - the 'major' airports will work to their capacity attracting all the extra business they can handle. Oxford, Southend, Biggin Hill etc are fighting as hard as they can to get the extra, leftover business; the scraps in reality (and there will be plenty of scraps to go round).

If anything it will be the ANSP who 'bails' out these 'minor' aerdromes by providing the service to the aircraft that the airports can't...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

If the night noise restrictions were cancelled for the period, the matter could be solved fairly quickly. Unfortunately, staff numbers in every department have been shaved so dramatically that there would no staff to handle the traffic.

[Lon More]

Paris, Cologne or Brussel and take Eurostar - Simples::)

[BOBBLEHAT]

Going back to the start of the thread and the Champions League match at Manchester. There were still inbounds in the hold after kick off!!! That's what just getting on with it achieves.

[5milesbaby]

Why are they only simulating the new arrival routings? Do they not think these aircraft are going to leave somehow? Considering the changes between now and then, I can see another big mess approaching.......

[chiglet]

Going back to the start of the thread and the Champions League match at Manchester. There were still inbounds in the hold after kick off!!! That's what just getting on with it achieves
:=
Not quite correct. They were the first string of the Departures...who were planned to land at Full Time + 15, so the Italians wouln't have to put up with Manchester for longer than necessary...... :D
I was on Afternoons that day in the Tower :ok:

[BOBBLEHAT]

Chiglet,


I too was on an afternoon and was sat watching them go round the DAYNE hold at kick off time....and they had been there quite some time..........

Let's not over-analyse this event because it has long been regarded as not being one of NATS' finest hours (amongst a few others!)

[25check]

A couple of weeks ago there was a CL final held at Wembley. There were Probably around 200 associated biz jets that used the London airfields plus lots of extra charter flights into Luton & Stansted etc, many of which departed that evening/night.

Things seemed to work OK on this occasion....

[Barnaby the Bear]

The Champions League final this year was small fry compared to the Olympics.
For a start one of the sides was from the UK (most of the fans probably from London :} ).
As stated previously, the Olympics will have around 150 visiting heads of State and the associated precautions. There will be Aircraft landing at Airport A which then need to reposition to park at Airport X due lack of space etc etc etc.
Then you have different peaks of traffic from individual countries that perform well during particular events.

There are issues to resolve, but on the whole I understand the nut is largely cracked. :ok:

[10W]

You're right barnaby, the Champions League (whichever year we talk about) is small fry.

The Atkins capacity report (available from all good Department of Transport bookstores) is predicting 3000 extra business aviation flights, 150 head of State flights, between 1300 and 1500 extra helicopter flights each day, and many extra Olympic 'family' and support flights.

There will also be an unknown number of flights possibly using airfields close to the Eurostar and ferry terminals in continental Europe as well.

The mention of removing night time curfews is moot because the travelling public don't want to arrive in London after midnight or before the crack of dawn and so there would be little or no take up of any extra capacity at those times. Remember that most of these extra flights are being chartered, so the customer has a big say on when they want to travel, not the other way around :ok:

[anotherthing]

10W et al,

The bit in the Atkins report you've missed is the statement that the extra flights such as head of state, Olympic family and busness flights will generally take place during the 3 days before and the 3 days after the main Olympics.
This makes the figures even worse as it is not spread over the whole of the time the Olympics take place.

Then on top of that there is, as you state, the anticipated extra helicopter flights (upwards of 1300 per day, allegedly) and the fact that Paris is putting a lot of effort into selling itself as the place to stay for the Olympics... nicer, safer city than London (not my words), and only a short hop across the channel... and that hop will be done by aircraft in the main if Paris gets the numbers of visitors it wants... Eurostar does not have the capacity.

Allied to all this is the fact that there is new temporary restricted airspace with a few rules attached... the LTMA already suffers an inordinate amount of infringers (though it has improved drastically over the past 2 years). These infrngers tend to be from local airfields that you would expect to know better... throw into the mix people flying around who don't have a clue about the airpace and it could be fun.

The main traffic will be fine. It will be busy but as usual the engineers, ATSAs and ATCOs will make it work (despite the best efforts of management :p).

The problem will come from responses to infringing aircraft... UK PLC will (rightly) be a lot twitchier than normal wrt security. I'd anticipate that response will be less measured i.e. less time taken for intelligence gathering before sending in assets to investigate, with the usual ensuing knock on effect in very busy airspace.

That is, in my opinion, where the biggest problem could arise.

[bad bear]

Why not simply ban the exec jets, except for heads of state, then the airlines can have a few more business and first class passengers?
Many people have already commented that the exec jet is the most probable terrorist weapon and the hardest to stop. Seems odd that they are allowed so close to the Olympic venue.
How long does it take for an exec jet to go from the approach at Biggin hill to the heart of the Olympic village and how would anyone stop it?
I am surprised that exec jets are allowed withing 60 miles of the Olympic venue.

bb

[soaringhigh650]

the LTMA already suffers an inordinate amount of infringers (though it has improved drastically over the past 2 years). These infrngers tend to be from local airfields that you would expect to know better... throw into the mix people flying around who don't have a clue about the airpace and it could be fun.

As there is so much Class A airspace around London, VFR is locked out. Pilots are left fending for themselves around such a complex environment.

But if the local airfields could have (and find means of funding) a tower and approach control, arriving and departing aircraft would be sent on appropriate routes under control until safely clear of the area.

Out of interest, has anyone considered Class B or C airspace?

[anotherthing]

VFR is not 'locked out' there are plenty areas you can fly VFR. There are plenty areas where you can fly where a simple call to the appropriate approach unit would mean that instead of being an infringer, you would be known traffic.

I haven't studied every single incident, but I would hazard a guess that almost every infringement is down to inattention.

Either inattention to detail in the planning phase, or inattention to the plan when airborne.

Even more to the point, a lack of adequate in-depth navigation training during a 40 hour PPL rating.

The one time I would maybe, just maybe, relent on the above is if an aircraft suffers an amergeny then strays. Even then I would be disappointed that the pilot did not follow the 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' principle.

If you are flying VFR with a zone to your right, then even in an emergency you should know you don't turn right and cause an infringement.

Navigation is not difficult however it is lacking, either through ignorance or laziness, in some pilots. These pilots are the ones that cause iinfringements.

Control Zones don't change on a daily basis, the information is readily available. The 6Ps taught in military flying are as pertinent to the hobby flier.

Prior Preparation Prevents Pi$$ Poor Performance.

Sorry if that comes across quite hard but it is a bit of a bug bear of mine.

The airspace might be tight, but it is not locked out and it is certainly not an excuse for poor airmanship.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

anotherthing.... Well said, Sir.

[mixture]

IIRC we all got extra for Dec31st 1999 because of the fear of the dreaded 'Millenium Bug'.

Don't worry, if you are still of working age, there will be another opportunity to claim extra pay on 31/12/2037, see here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem) :cool:

[mixture]

then even in an emergency

It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;


So.... as long as you're prepared to comply with

If any departure from the Rules of the Air is made for the purpose of avoiding
immediate danger, the commander of the aircraft must cause written detailed
information about the departure, and of the circumstances giving rise to it, to be given
within 10 days of the departure to the competent authority of the country in whose
territory the departure was made or if the departure was made over the high seas, to
the CAA.

Then infringing controlled airspace in an emergency as a last resort when you've exhaused absolutley every other possibility is something that would be silly for anotherthing to ban outright !

However, for the avoidance of doubt, my point of view is you shouldn't be flying so close to it in the first place !

[anotherthing]

Mixture,

The point was trying to make, maybe not so well, is that you should always be aware of your position.

An emergency is not an excuse to let your airmanship fall to pieces, in fact the very opposite should happen.

I had just re-read my post before reading your reply and I did think that it might need some qualification. If a pilot is suffering an emergency, then I would not expect the book to be thrown at them if they infringe... far from it, extenuating circumstances and all that.

However as any pilot who has done proper emergency training (i.e. not PPL 'experience of emergencies') will know that one of the things drummed into you is that you do not let the emergency take over to the extent that airmanship suffers.

Aviate, Navigate, Comunicate.

There aint that many emergencies that stop you from being able to do the above.

[mixture]

anotherthing,

Ok, in the light of your clarification I can see where you are coming from now.

I was getting myself ready to throw the rather extreme infringement scenario of a hijacking at you, but I see this is now not needed. :E

[anotherthing]

As long as the hijacker was adequately trained in navigation...

[Gonzo]

I realise that this is taking the thread off topic, but I agree with anotherthing.

I have not got a PPL; I did a few hours before joining NATS and then had the 15 hours during my training.

I have been lucky enough to go flying with a few non-ATCO friends, some of whom had hundreds of PPL hours, and one who was about to go to a well known flight training establishment to do the ATPL course.

I have often been surprised (and not in a good way) by the level of navigation competence I have encountered while being in the right hand seat of C152s and PA28s (all non-GPS equipped). On paper, in the flight planning stage, everything is fine, but once in the air there appears to be a lack of experience in relating the chart to what is out of the window, and a reluctance to use the navaids as a back up (they give that job to me!). A number of infringements, especially of the Stansted zone, have been avoided due to my leading questions. I'm not blowing my own trumpet, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I do worry about the state of airmanship and navigation out there.

[anotherthing]

Gonzo,

It is unfortunate... when I did my 15 hours worth of flying 'training' with NATS, I ended up spending a good part of the time teaching my instructor (who could fly the aircraft very well), the finer points of VFR navigation planning and execution.

Thought I'd almost got there until on a trip to Prestwick, he couldn't find the airfield despite the humungus big line feature that leads you all the way in being in front of him for several miles without him noticing... and he wasn't even flying, he was purely navving while I sat behind and another student flew :ugh:

Back to the thread... the olympics will be fine... As for the post a few above talking about the departures being possibly the worst... I'm sure even the minor aerodromes will be regulated by some pretty stiff slots

[5milesbaby]

I wasn't saying that the departures would be the worst, obviously we can keep them on the ground and regulate more easily. However, if we have to create new routings and procedures for arrivals, then surely we will need to adapt to cope with the departures? If we don't then there will be extensive departure delays, therefore valuable tarmac occupied for much longer than expected, therefore a valuable parking space not available for all the inbounds we are trying to cram through the system. London City works wonders with the limited amount of space it has, I am wrong in thinking more of the London airports will have similar problems during the Olympic period? Can't see the point of having 6 new ways to get them in but no new ways to get them back out.

[anotherthing]

Sorry,

Misinterpreted your post. Yes, you would think that new routes out would be a good idea... I suppose the argument is that for the inbounds the new holds will take up any over delivery, whereas with properly applied flow(!), the outbounds will ...be easier to regulate.

Harder to ensure inbounds arrive at the time they are supposed to because of all the variables in a long inbound flight.

[WorkingHard]

Anotherthing, perhaps you could also consider the provision of adequate numbers of controllers in controlled airspace so that VFR traffic can get equal access for that chunk of sky as per the original intentions. One frequently hears "due to controller workload" or "ROCAS" without the correct response of when access would be granted. Of course in GA we do have the option of filing IFR and all that goes with that but GA does not need that, what it does need, I believe, is proper and adequate support from those who seek to exclude (for safety reasons course).

[anotherthing]

How much would you be willing to pay for the service? At the moment light aircraft pay nothing, yet cause the most grief when INCAS because they have poor performance i.e. they are in the way for much longer, take longer to vacate levels etc.

Workload rises way out of proportion when you add a puddle jumper to the equation.

Maybe set rates at how complex an aircraft makes things by being in the airspace.... but that would see a pilot of a C152 paying much more than a 777!!

[Barnaby the Bear]

Although this is a drift thread.
Not withstanding anotherthings post. When you listen to the standard of R/T and and in some cases basic Airmanship in some quarters of GA, it is perhaps understandable why some are told to remain Outside CAS. :mad: :}

[WorkingHard]

It does not seem to be such a problem in many other countries as it seems to be here. All I was asking was for those who wish to have the right to exclude others perhaps ought to consider going by the rule book - just as GA should. As for paying for the service I would submit that those who want the CAS should make the service available without charge because it is ACCESS to that airspace that is being requested and you pay nothing for that chunk of airspace. If you paid by the volume you wish to have then there may be a case for charging for entry but as you dont it seems to be a bit of a spurrious argument. There is a lot of castigation of GA and in some cases rightly so but not all GA is made up of weekend "bumblers". You know as do I that anything that is not classed as military or CAT is GA so a very wide range is covered.

[soaringhigh650]

WorkingHard.... Well said, Sir.

VFR is not 'locked out' there are plenty areas you can fly VFR

According to my book, Class A prohibits VFR. (with the exception of the CTR, etc. - ok)

I agree some pilots could do with better navigation and radio training. The reluctance by some to use radio nav and/or GPS still puzzles me.

However as your airspace is so complex, I think it's rather unfair that VFR is left on its own to navigate themselves around the pile of Class A at 10,000ft:

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd397/soaringhigh650/london.jpg

*Source: SkydemonLight showing airspace of the London area, a product endorsed by NATS. Garmin GPS units would also show similar airspace depictions.

Notes: Each red line depicts a boundary of Class A airspace, where mostly VFR is locked out. Pink line shows route from Shoreham to Cambridge. Pink shaded circles show NOTAMed areas. And I chose 10,000ft because it's more fuel efficient.

... yet cause the most grief when INCAS because they have poor performance i.e. they are in the way for much longer, take longer to vacate levels etc.

I thought that's what lower airways are for? Light and slow aircraft generally cruise at lower altitudes. You won't find B737's cruising at 4000ft.

[anotherthing]

No, you are correct you won't (usually), find 737's cruising at 4000. However as your own diagram illustrates, there are lots of different parts of CAS all with different levels.

Although 737's don't usually stooge around at 4000, they do have to climb through that level to get to the cruise.

Many of the light aircraft want to cruise at FL80, 90, or 100. This puts them in direct conflict with passenger aircraft wishing to climb/descend through these levels.

Using your diagram again, you can see how many small airfields there are in the area... the performance characteristics of a lot of aircraft operating from these airfields means that they will get in the way as they slowly plod their way up to FL80 or 90, whilst doing 120Kts ground speed

Your route from Shoreham to Cambridge would not get to fly that way at any level in the TMA, because of the various holds for major airports, or various zones, being used by airline operators that pay for the service

If you really are talking about aircraft being allowed to fly VFR at 4000, then you really need to understand how the airspace is designed and why. The base is designed on climb characteristics of passenger aircraft leaving major licensed airports. It is there to afford some safety in the climb/descent i.e. the airspace base raised the further from an airport you get. That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.

You really need to understand the reasons behind airspace design and not just throw your toys out the cot because you can't fly wherever you want. It is an intense area of aircraft operation. The airspace is designed to provide protection. Whilst not maybe the most efficient use, it is also designed to allow as much Class G as possible, e.g. underneath.

Unless you are willing to dig deep and pay quite hefty charges to facilitate extra controllers and support staff and equipment, I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc, entry will be subject to traffic, you would not get charged if you couldn't enter.

In the ideal world, everyone would be able to do what they want when they wanted, but it is not the ideal world. The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users, and it is in the interests of UK PLC to protect trade and get money into the country via passenger transport etc.

[WorkingHard]

Anotherthing you said "The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users". I agree of course that ATC is funded by the airports and hence the CAT BUT, can you explain how that equates to funding THE AIRSPACE? As I see it you get a chunk of airspace for which you pay NOTHING then you have to provide ATC for the CAT to get them in and out of your airport and they pay for the priviledge quite rightly. That does not mean you have the EXCLUSIVE use of that chunk of airspace to charge others for using it. Under the terms of the allocated airspace it has to be available (we are talking Class D for example) for all users within the realms of safe operation and just because NATS or whoever decides to not fund enough controllers to manage that chunk of airspace is no reason to deny access. I appreciate it is not the fault of the controller but unless you the controllers start to apply a bit more pressurte on your employers then this will never be resolved.
I am quite happy to take any controller on a tour VFR and let you have first hand experience of what is faced by GA on a daily basis

[Weirdo Earthtorch]

I am quite happy to take any controller on a tour VFR and let you have first hand experience of what is faced by GA on a daily basis

Perhaps it should also be you who might benefit from a tour of the ATC facility to let you have first hand experience of what is faced by controllers on a daily basis (if you have not done so already/recently).

[WorkingHard]

WE well actually I have, perhaps not as recently as I should, and I have a lot of sympathy for the problems faced by ATC. How is it to be resolved? Not by imposing ROCAS ad lib, that just exacerbates pilot views of ATC, albeit unfounded. If you respond to traffic and find them unable to observe the clearance then why not give them a course straight out of your airspace and rescind the clearance? There are notable areas where the access to CAS is very good and there are times when the service surpasses all expectations but, sadly, my experience in the UK is there are a few who seem (note I said seem) to just be obstructive and forget they are supposed to provide access equally when safety allows. Our airspace is complicated and so very easy in marginal or poor conditions to inadvertently stray from a planned route so a little help from a radar unit might go a long way to avoiding infringements for those who are inexperienced or not so adequately equipped, don’t you agree? And just for the record I always plan a route away from CAS but that should not be necessary I think and it can add considerably to distances and costs.

[terrain safe]

Working hard. Having been a controller in a tower only environment we aren't fans of GA aircraft. Mainly because when they interact it will be close to a major airfield, and if it goes wrong, it will quickly and will usually end in tears, especially for some controllers I've worked with over the years. A couple of weeks of community service because a pilot didn't do what they were told will generally act as a really good reason not to let them near my airspace. Anyway you state :" they are supposed to provide access equally when safety allows". Where is this stated please, as I can't remember reading it. Thanks.

[5milesbaby]

Soaringhigh650 - your description of your map is wrong and very misleading for those following the debate with little knowledge. You state:
Notes: Each red line depicts a boundary of Class A airspace, where mostly VFR is locked out.
I control some of the airspace on your map, you are wrong in what you have said. I don't know what the map is actually for, but it doesn't show much accuracy for air traffic or navigational purposes as half the information is irrelevant and half the information is also missing.

WorkingHard - You may want to fly the most desired route for nothing, but we have very limited space to cram the paying customers through. The TMA airspace is mainly designated Class A on safety grounds, a card that will ALWAYS win.

[Roffa]

terrain safe, for starters you might want to dig out the Air Traffic Services Licence for NATS (En Route) PLC.

Condition 2: General obligation to provide Core Services and Specified Services may be your first point of reference.

As for your community service analogy, you don't often hear of airline pilots saying they're not going back to your airport when one of you has stuffed up. Don't tar everyone with the same brush, you are there to provide a service to all users. Oh and it's not 'your airspace', you are just managing it on behalf of the users.

Working Hard, providing an air traffic service does come at a cost and it's the airlines that bear the bulk of the burden there. I'm sure NATS would love to provide you with lots of dedicated VFR services over and above what's available now but someone does have to pay for it. The airlines won't, indeed they are already trying to get VFR GA to pay something to reduce their own costs, so who do you suggest does?

In the brave new(ish) world of the UK's privatised ATC service, he who pays the most does call more of the shots.

[WorkingHard]

The best answer I can give Roffa is to repeat that it is not GA that needs the CAS but the airlines and if they wish to have a very large volume of airspace (for which they have paid nothing) then surely it should be incumbent on them to provide the necessary infrastructure to allow others to use that airspace when safe so to do and I would also venture that not enough controllers should not be a "safety" issue. NATS or whoever want the airspace to satisfy their fee paying airlines who will simply add any additional costs on to their fee paying passengers whereas the majority of GA does not have that luxury. So I say again it is not GA that needs the airspace it is the airlines so why should GA pay for the "privilidge" of being able to transit through a chunk of airspace that someone claims as their "own" and have paid nothing for it?

[anotherthing]

the airlines and if they wish to have a very large volume of airspace (for which they have paid nothing)Wrong!
The airlines pay navigation charges which pays for the infrastructure... airspace development, airspace consultations, ATS within the airspace etc.

In fact the airlines (all of them who enter UK airspace) pay a lot of money for the privilege... To the extent that UK route charges are amongst the most expensive around... This fact is brought about because of the complexity and saturation of the airspace (the very reasons that VFR traffic is not allowed).

Not enough controllers is a safety issue!!! And I'm afraid any ATS provider is not going to employ more (at their expense) just so that a non fee paying punter can enter airspace.

Some questions for you, though I am tiring of this discussion as it is getting nowhere because unless you can have freedom to fly wherever you want, you probably wont be happy...

1. Do you believe that passenger airliners should be afforded protection?
2. If yes, how do you propose it is given?
3. Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA, or should it be first come, first served i.e. you want a zone crossing so departures get stopped to facilitate you...?
4. How much are you willing to pay for a mandatory service through a piece of airspace, of any classification within which an ATS is provided for safety?
5. Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc?

[terrain safe]

Roffa

I don't work for NERL so that doesn't apply to me. As for my airspace, if you need my permission to enter it, it's mine.

[Roffa]

terrain safe,

Poor attitude if you don't mind me saying so, the airspace isn't your personal fiefdom. You might want to take note of the CAA's policy statement on the Purpose of Controlled Airspace...

The purpose of CAS in the UK is to enhance the protection of Air Transport Movements (ATMs) operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) during en-route flight and the critical stages of an Instrument Arrival or Departure, and to permit the safe and effective integration of such traffic with other IFR flights and flights operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Such protection is principally established by means of a “known traffic” environment.

Note it's not to keep one type of traffic out, it's to allow safe and effective integration.

Or if you work for NATS, be it NERL or NSL you'll find "We are charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace".

Along with the fact that an airliner and a non-training VFR transit or arrival/departure actually have the same level of flight priority you might want to be a bit more service orientated to all the potential customers. Or is it just an ego trip for you?

[WorkingHard]

The airlines pay navigation charges which pays for the infrastructure... airspace development, airspace consultations, ATS within the airspace etc.

Well yes of course as I said it is they who demand it (for safety reasons) so then it is right they should pay. GA does not need this but IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY for CAT

In fact the airlines (all of them who enter UK airspace) pay a lot of money for the privilege... To the extent that UK route charges are amongst the most expensive around... This fact is brought about because of the complexity and saturation of the airspace (the very reasons that VFR traffic is not allowed).
To quote you WRONG. It may be that YOU do not allow VFR traffic but that is not what you are required to do

Not enough controllers is a safety issue!!! And I'm afraid any ATS provider is not going to employ more (at their expense) just so that a non fee paying punter can enter airspace.
Look at the terms and conditions for grant of that airspace and you may find that is just what ATS is required to do.

Some questions for you, though I am tiring of this discussion as it is getting nowhere because unless you can have freedom to fly wherever you want, you probably wont be happy...
Puerile rubbish sir and I have never suggested anything like this.

1. Do you believe that passenger airliners should be afforded protection?
Yes of course
2. If yes, how do you propose it is given?
By operating according to current laid down procedures
3. Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA, or should it be first come, first served i.e. you want a zone crossing so departures get stopped to facilitate you...?
CAT, which is more costly to run, should almost always take priority but there is a judgement which may be made that allows GA and CAT to operate safely in the same environment without a necessary exclusion.
4. How much are you willing to pay for a mandatory service through a piece of airspace, of any classification within which an ATS is provided for safety?
I believe I have already made a case for GA not paying for a transit of NON EXCLUSIVE airspace.
5. Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc


Perhaps I may be allowed to ask you a few questions?
1) Do you know what a DA crossing service is?
2) Are you really an ATCO and if so do tell which is YOUR exclusive bit of CAS so we may not bother you at all with entirely superfluous RT calls?
3) Do you really have such a blinkered view of the world of aviation or are you just attempting to have a bit of fun?

[anotherthing]

WH

A DA crossing service will be provided if it is safe to do so... DAs exist for more than just aircraft flying around, missile firings etc also require a DA.

It is very easy to give a DA crossing service in a piece of airspace several hundred square miles in size when it is being used by only a couple of Typhoons. Crossing a packed TMA is an entirely different proposition...

I work class A airspace in the LTMA. SVFR is not available in this airspace.

Class D airspace Zone crossings can be done under SVFR, subject to workload. I'm afraid that fee paying commercial traffic will always get priority, even though you are of equal flight priority. Any ATCO who refuses a zone crossing when they are able to give one, needs to be taken aside and re-briefed.

A commercial ANSP will not pay money to provide extra controllers just to give Zone crossings. In fact there is no need to, either the crossing is possible (which means that the workload allows it) or it isn't... having an extra controller will rarely make a difference if there is traffic to prevent the crossing.

The airspace in the LTMA is not ideal, but had been designed to try to give as much class G as possible. Any airspace changes have to be approved and it is a long drawn out process. Zone crossings are available, subject to workload. If workload is sufficiently high, then no amount of controllers sitting in would mean that the Zone crossing could happpen... because it would mean delaying the Fee paying aircraft.

Two final questions for you...

Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?

What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???

[WorkingHard]

Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?

No I do not think it is either desireable or necessary

What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???

Not a route I would choose that's for sure. I would be routing - Mayfield, Detling, EGMC, Earls Colne then Cambridge which is 106 track miles (47 minutes). If I get a direct from Stansted then so be it; experience says dont bother asking. The direct line is 84 track miles (37 minutes) but in very congested airspace with much faster traffic (I only do about 135 Kts) and with the likely number of different tracks to avoid the big stuff it is most probably quicker on my preferred route.

In the context of this thread I have not referred to the Class A or indeed some of the very busy airspace to which you refer. But in general where, for example, class D exsist and there is a distance to go around or having to take another route entirely then the denial of a crossing may be irksome when it is perceived as unjustified. Looking at the current use % against the capacity figures for some airports that have class D and sadly also have a reputation for issuing blanket ROCAS, then that perception could possibly be justified.
Much of which Roffa said in his last post is I think very apt.

It is clear we are on different sides of a divide and I find it very sad that this divide exists at all.

[anotherthing]

My guess is that if some here firmly believe that all existing and complex Class A airspace should be left as it is and people prevented from access, these infringement numbers are never going to come down significantly. Good luck!Au contraire... NATS led a couple of workstreams that were principally about educating the general GA community about infringements and what effect it has.

The number of infringements has dropped significantly... I could get you the exact figure, but I do not have it to hand. However off the top of my head I believe it is in the region of 30-40%, a not insignificant number.

By continuing the education it is believed that the numbers will continue to tumble.

Doesn't matter how complicated the airspace is deemed to be... sensible route choice and fastidious planning would all but eradicate infringements - and for the purposes of this thread drift, the 'right' to enter CAS is a totally different argument from the (in)ability to navigate round it

[5milesbaby]

soaringhigh650, you refer to your diagram but fail to answer my question as to what your diagram is showing, because it isn't showing the changing bases of CAS (I know this because some of it is the airspace I hold a license to provide a radar control service in).

Comparing the London TMA to ANY other area in the world is fruitless, there is no other area with the same requirements or amounts/types of traffic across such a small zone. The sectorisation isn't perfect and is always being modified, however excluding VFR traffic is done for a very good reason.

workinghard,
In fact the airlines (all of them who enter UK airspace) pay a lot of money for the privilege... To the extent that UK route charges are amongst the most expensive around... This fact is brought about because of the complexity and saturation of the airspace (the very reasons that VFR traffic is not allowed).
To quote you WRONG. It may be that YOU do not allow VFR traffic but that is not what you are required to do
The airspace anotherthing and myself control in is Class A, therefore no VFR, therefore we are both doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing, and cannot allow VFR flight.

[Roffa]

Comparing the London TMA to ANY other area in the world is fruitless, there is no other area with the same requirements or amounts/types of traffic across such a small zone.

Forgive me but that's... bollox.

[WorkingHard]

5milesbaby - of course but if it had been specified we were talking about Class A, which we were not, then the questions and answers would have been markedly different. To introduce that at this stage is just plain silly and lets hope you are more forthcoming with the aircraft you do control in your lovely class A. Perhaps we have spoken on the RT and I would never know.

[anotherthing]

Wh,


to be fair neither you nor SoaringHigh were specific, and seeing as the thread is about Olympic airspace validation (Class A in the main), then I think 5Miles and myself were entitled to surmise that was what you were both talking about.

Throw in the diagram that SoaringHigh provided, where he states that the 'red lines depict Class A airspace', and upon which he draws a nonsensical route on it, to be flown at 10000', then I'm afraid the confusion lies more squarely at his, or both of your feet, as you didn't correct it :)

[WorkingHard]

OK point take anotherthing but actually the restrictions are very wide ranging and will have an enormous impact on GA, almost certainly much much more than on IFR traffic.
Thanks for all the insights.

[5milesbaby]

WH, the whole VFR debate was started by soaringhigh650 who's first sentence was:
As there is so much Class A airspace around London, VFR is locked out.
Who needs to be forthcoming??

[billiboing]

... you are so wrong Sir,

(I am using Steak and Chips login as I dont have one, but this post has annoyed me so much I had to reply- I will however get one.

You seem to forget the extra tax that was put on AVGAS which we all use ( well most of GA) that was justified all those years ago as paying for your "services".

In a pence paid per mile per passenger per service used the GA community actually pays far more than anyone else by a factor of about 50.

What worries me more is your stinking attitude to GA pilots. I am only replying because as a ATPL holder with 32000 hours that flies into the LTMA on a weekly basis, BUT ALSO as (like so many of us are) private pilots- in my case for aerobatics, I expect the same service whether I have 250 pax or I am a Slingsby T67. I am the same pilot in both, BUT the difference I get in service is incredible. As a T67 pilot I am often treated rudely and with indifference to requests- WHY?

Please dont treat all GA pilots as idiots as that is how you come across and you are (IMHO) a discredit to what is generally a highly respected, highly professional and great bunch of people. :ugh:

[Not Long Now]

Oh, and don't tell me, you believe the money from tax on petrol goes to road maintenance too!! ATC service is paid for from route charges, and route charges only. If you pay route charges then you can expect a service.

[WorkingHard]

NotLongNow - actually I think that is the nub of the problem. It is not you, the ATCO, who decides the details of who/what/why/where etc. but the terms of the licence for the airspace and you are (supposedly) required to administer that airspace in accordance with the terms set out in various documents. So please do not say if we pay route charges we can have a service. It is not you that makes that decision but as the previous poster says the poor attitude to GA is sometime quite obvious. For example there is a requirement for you, when access has been requested to your!! airspace and you cannot allow at that time, to provide an estimate of when such access will be granted. How often have you followed that rule please?

[Not Long Now]

Hand on heart, in the last approx. 20 years, I have refused a joining clearance 3 times, twice due to weather and once for a Mayday causing some 'interest' in the sector. In all cases, I gave an estimated wait time, and in all 3 cases the a/c elected to continue 'outside' rather than wait. Your point???

[WorkingHard]

Not Long Now, I am genuinely impressed and your are to be congratulated. My experience of VFR in the UK over the last 28 years suggests you are a rarity and whilst I have always had a very good service from UK controllers when in CAS it has become increasingly difficult to gain access. As I said in a prior post I now routinely avoid the vast majority of CAS for that reason. With traffic volumes at an all time low for many years one would have expected more access to CAS and not less.

[Not Long Now]

Well if you're VFR then I'm not going to give you a clearance, as my airspace is classified as to prohibit that. Argue the toss with the regulator, not the ATCO. Also, a correction, if you're exempt from route charges (weight being a prime example) you can still get a service, just file an IFR flight plan!

[anotherthing]

SteakandChips...

You seem to forget the extra tax that was put on AVGAS which we all use ( well most of GA) that was justified all those years ago as paying for your "services".

Things have moved on somewhat, old chap. Has done for quite some number of years now. The 'justification' for the tax is no longer 'just'.

The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.

INCAS, money is generated by route fees.

Unlike Like Not Long Now, I have never refused CAS joins, I have been fortunate not to have had to.

Like Not Long Now, the airspace I control in does not allow for VFR traffic... as was explained above your post, we are talking Class A... the reason we are talking class A is because the title of this thread is 'Olympic Airspace Validation'... which is Class A airspace. Also please read the very short post immediately before you one...

The confusion was further added to by a post by SoaringHigh (above)showing a chart, with a fictitious route to be flown at 10,000', VFR, wholly within Class A.

Now as a pilot with your experience, you will understand that what you are talking about, and what I am talking about, are two totally different things.

But just to repeat; AVGAS tax does not pay for the provision of ATC within CAS. As a T67 pilot, if you were to file an IFR flight plan to fly through the LTMA, you would get clearance and because of aircraft weight, would pay nothing for it... The gas you consumed would line the coffers of the Government.

As a pilot of a slow, light aircraft... you would cause a higher workload by being in the sirspace because you are there for longer, take longer (usually) to climb, and usually cruise at an awkward level. That's not a 'stinking attitude', it's a fact I'm afraid.

Despite that fact, I will reiterate that in the airspace I work, I have never refused a join, and most of my colleagues have neither.

Only a very few, like Not Long Now, have experienced conditions bad enough that it was felt refusal was the only course of action in the interest of safety.

SoCal App

Totally different airspace, with different rules.

Heathrow and Gatwick, 2 of several major airports within the area... with a hell of a lot more than one GA airfield within a couple of miles...

You cannot compare your airspace with the LTMA, both are unique.

[Roffa]

The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.

Unless things have changed very recently, LARS is funded out of the route charges pot i.e. effectively the airlines are paying for it. A situation they are not happy with and have actively been trying to change. It was circa £1.6M a few years ago (pre Farnborough LARS expansion).

The most recent CAA review of LARS funding concluded that changes, such as moving to hypothecation of fuel duty, charging at point of use or other ways of billing the main user had disadvantages such that no change was made.

So, the airlines very begrudgingly continue to fund LARS through route charges.

It's also almost certainly the case that the LARS funding that is received doesn't actually cover the cost of providing the service. So LARS users are in fact being subsidised both by the airlines and the ATC service providers.

It might be worth researching the history of LARS and how it seems to have changed from an occasional service when capacity was spare to something that is now expected to be open and manned at published times despite the fact that costs probably are not being covered.

[chevvron]

The London LARS services provided from Farnborough were intially (and could still be) funded by NATS Services Ltd from it's own contingency funds, not even from en-route charges.

[anotherthing]

Roffa,

Unless things have changed since PPP, HM Taxpayer pays a paltry sum towards ATSOCAS/LARS.

It certainly used to be the case that money was given to LARS units, however it barely covered the salary of one member of staff, never mind all the staff and equipment needed! There may be a difference between LARS provided as part of a 'bolt' on by ANSP's such as NATS and LARS provided by HMG dictate from military units where, I think, the equivalent of one persons salary was given by HMG as reward for the provision!


Chevvron,

NATS and Farnborough LARS are possibly different in-so-much it was a decision by NATS, and not part of any Government policy, to provide a LARS service from Farnborough, in an effort (that has had some considerable success) to prevent infringements and airprox's with traffic flying under the LTMA and into and out of LF Clutch airfields; a requirement from one of the previous safety plans. NATS therefore covers the cost for this service (and by default the airlines pay for it through route charges).

[Not Long Now]

GA IS accomodated in the LTMA, but it has to be IFR, which is the somewhat huge difference. We cannot simply pass traffic, we must provide standard separation.

[soaringhigh650]

then I'm afraid the confusion lies more squarely at his, or both of your feet, as you didn't correct it

Andy, I don't know what you're confused about.

My posts were in response to the comment you made about an "inordinate amount of infringements" on June 14th and I was simply highlighting the fact that over-complex airspace and no-VFR access are also reasons for infringements, as well as pilot navigation too.

... off the top of my head I believe it is in the region of 30-40%, a not insignificant number.

FlyOnTrack's 2010 figures show whilst infringements are down by 14% compared to 2009, they're still up by 6% compared to 2008.

You have the remaining 85%+ to go.

5milesbaby:

you refer to your diagram but fail to answer my question as to what your diagram is showing

I've sent you a PM.

however excluding VFR traffic is done for a very good reason.

Please explain what's wrong with CVFR and using standard separation when it is clear VMC.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<We cannot simply pass traffic, we must provide standard separation.>>

Which is good. So far as I am aware, the last mid-air collision in UK controlled airspace involving passenger aircraft was in 1946. How many have there been in the USA in the same period?

[soaringhigh650]

How many have there been in the USA in the same period?

Or perhaps the question should be better phrased as: How many more aircraft has the USA handled in the same period and what is the ratio of collisions to numbers handled?

[LostThePicture]

It appears the last UK mid-air collision involving a commercial airliner was in 1948. Since then, there have been at least 16 such incidents in the US. Draw your own conclusions, but I would say it's hardly a glowing recommendation for US airspace planning.

Back to the subject of the thread now, maybe?

LTP

[5milesbaby]

Soaringhigh360, unfortunately your link in your PM to me is to a website that needs a Microsoft operating system to view, so I sadly cannot. You say it all in the description though, that it shows base level changes AND airway boundaries. Not all airway boundaries are points of changes of base levels, therefore your diagram is certainly misleading as I originally said.

Get the approval, and you can come play VFR in my airspace, just have to be FL200+...... :}

[Vanilla Fudge]

Further development of the airspace security restrictions covering the London Olympic and Paralympic Games for 2012 were announced July 19 by the UK Government, as part of its objective to deliver of a safe and secure Games for all.

Read details at: Air Traffic Management : Strategy, Technology and Management for the world's most global industry (http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/view_news.asp?ID=3555)

[soaringhigh650]

anotherthing,


That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.
Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc


VFR does not go in "willy nilly" in the US.
But VFR is allowed in under guidance and control in Class B or C airspace and under protection from IFR, etc.


You really need to understand the reasons behind airspace design and not just throw your toys out the cot because you can't fly wherever you want. It is an intense area of aircraft operation. The airspace is designed to provide protection. Whilst not maybe the most efficient use, it is also designed to allow as much Class G as possible, e.g. underneath.


I am not throwing my toys out of a cot. I was highlighting the fact that allowing as much Class G as possible:

1. Has made your operations within Class A probably more intense than it could be
2. Reduces or stops safe VFR access - flying in CAS is safer than OCAS
3. Increases the amount of infringements due to your complicated boundaries and base levels, as shown on my diagram.


Unless you are willing to dig deep and pay quite hefty charges to facilitate extra controllers and support staff and equipment, I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc, entry will be subject to traffic, you would not get charged if you couldn't enter.


Some countries like the US and France pays for its ATC out of taxation. Other countries like Germany and Canada have approach navigation charges operating on a cost recovery basis. If there are AVGAS taxes it should fund ATC, airports etc. If there are no taxes, then of course the users should pay for it.


Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA


There should never be priority between who's operating commercially or non-commercially.

In the US an ATC service is provided on a first-come-first-served basis with some exceptions, one being IFR aircraft having priority over SVFR.


Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?


Class A should be minimized whereever possible. This includes your lower airways too. All non-instrument rated pilots, regardless of what they are flying, ain't gonna like it.

And use of low level Class A is completely against the principles of AOPA.

What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???

No problems at all under IFR. As of today Eurocontrol accepts routing of OCK M185 BPK DCT BKY at FL 100 in the flight plan. On the day you might tactically vector me on another route under your direction, and I am happy with that.

I shouldn't expect this clearance to only be granted if I file IFR. Especially when it is clear VMC. :ugh:

I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc.

So if I file IFR there will always be capacity and when I fly VFR there will never be capacity? There's a deep rooted ATC issue somewhere.

5milesbaby,

The TMA airspace is mainly designated Class A on safety grounds, a card that will ALWAYS win.

I disagree. Your infringement numbers are evidence that this has failed.

Have you considered partitioning controlled airspace with different transit/approach/departure sectors for the different categories (ie. A,B,C,D) of airplanes on safety grounds? This includes both IFR and VFR which are operate safely under control.

One should study the infringement problem and compare your stats with other countries. I don't think us US PPLs navigate any less or better than our European trained counterparts. What is definitely true is that the airspace volumes are more predictable with concentric circles centered around VORs based at the airport or airspace boundaries following prominent visual features on the ground. Hence I'm not surprised places like Stansted keep getting busted on a daily basis.

My guess is that if some here firmly believe that all existing and complex Class A airspace should be left as it is and people prevented from access, these infringement numbers are never going to come down significantly. Good luck!

[10W]

It would be nice to start with a clean sheet of paper, instead of the dogs breakfast which has evolved, sorry, mutated in to the current UK airspace.

Alas time, money, politics, defence needs, and the various agendas of multiple user and service provider groups mean it will probably never happen :(