Dangerous under FAJS TMA?

[EltorroLoco]

I'm looking for some opinion from fellow ATC (I'm FAJS Radar), but especially from pilots who fly in the special rules area under the TMA at Johannesburg, as well as any other pilots for that matter.

My concern is that the lower limit of the Radar controlled airspace is 8000' and the upper limit of the uncontrolled airspace underneath is 7500'.

My problem is that IFR separation is 1000'. End of story.

How can we be comfortable with 500' on two different frequencies? Yet 500' on a controlled frequency with Mode "C" readouts verified is an incident.

To make matters worse, the pilots in Indian Territory (named that because there are so many Cherokees and Comanches incidentally) are more likely to bust levels since they are VFR pilots, many will not be flying with autopilots and many are students. To make matters slightly worse, they may all be on a different QNH too, even though they are supposed to be on the one one that FAJS ATIS. This is not a dig at the VFR pilots, it is just the way it is.

Naturally I've had a word with the powers that be, and the answer was a shrug, and "It's always been like that."

My actual question is whether I'm making a Boeing out of a Cessna, or I should campaign to get this changed. I just don't want to be the only one at the subsequent board on inquiry (since everyone else's wings are now white and feathery) and my defense is, "It's always been like that."

It normally is until something goes wrong...

[CAACHIEF]

I fully concur with your concerns. I have recently been asking ATC for "Controlled VFR" coming into/departing JHB area. After a brief delay they usually come back and assign you sqwauk and altitude. More VFR pilots should use this facility and avoid the rat runs under the TMA.:ok:

[4HolerPoler]

Only downside to that, Chief, is it congests an already busy frequency. If you had half the rat-runners asking Joburg for "Controlled VFR" the radio would get log-jammed.

Good topic though, something needs to be done.

4HP

[Goldfish Jack]

A lot of discussion has been going on about this for over 20 years, so it is nothing new.

Basically you are required to have 1000ft spearation between controlled flights in controlled airspace, obviously below 29000ft(!). But...... (now read below)!!!....

However you also have to look at airspace construction. (This requires that you do a lot of reading in the various ICAO annex's and docs). When you do this you will see that ICAO requires you to ensure that the lower limit of all airspace, including above a CTR, is to be a VFR level. (ie 7500ft). This will ensure that your IFR aircraft flying at the lowest available IFR level, in the relevant controlled airspace, will always be afforded the minimum of 500ft separation from aircraft operating below the controlled airspace.

Now the next problem you have to deal with is the people flying below controlled airspace - they must be disciplined enought to ensure they do not go around flying wherever they want to. They must be allowed the freedom to fly where they want but not get into controlled airspace (ie a CTR, ATZ or TMA). If you are having a problem with them entering your controlled airspace, you need to look at what is causing this. (ie poor training of students, not enough briefings iro controlled airspace, flying without a map, or too complicated airspace, for example).

I suggest you take some time and have a look at the Cape Town airspace. There is a SRA below the TMA with clearly laid out operating procedures and which frequencies you are required to be on. The airspace is fully compliant with ICAO requirements and they very seldom have a VFR aircraft entering the TMA - the rare ocassions it does happen, invariably involve a BAA from outside of the Cape area. The special rules area was as a result of interaction between ATC and the pilots and was drawn up after many meetings and serves the purpose of all parties to ensure a safe operating environment, for the enjoyment of pilots and the safe opeation of IFR flights in controlled airspace. It works pretty well and very few incidents happen.

[Rhodie]

El Loco...

It's good to hear a point of view from the ATC perspective..!

I am one of the GA flyers who scoots the Harties / Sandton / CBD route to show our earth-bound bretheren what they miss out on. I also do GC to the North many weekends, and yes, the GC to LA to HBV route can be a veritable scud-run sometimes (especially around the "ol red and white radio mast"), but, with (PLEASE) short and sweet calls, we all seem to have avoided bumping into each other.

Agreed, it can be crowded, it needs a good look-out and it needs good comms (without grandma's current state of health and how small the people look on the ground).

The variance in QNH is a concern, but I always hear incoming guys call and request current if from outside the TMA - but, I suppose the ones who dont call are the concern...(?)

Please no more new rules / laws etc. right now, as these are always accompanied by new FEES. I already sold the chickens to find enough shillings for the next gallon of gas.

Seeya on 125.8

[silverknapper]

Again I'm another GA flyer. What about lowering the upper limit to 7000'. 7500 is quite high when you are entering the area from a lower level, 065. I know you can take 6500 but that can be the already mentioned scud run. Having flown from GC it also takes longer to climb to that altitude, especially on a hot day. I do agree though, I've seen myself when I was learning getting to 7600' (sorry everyone!) If you combined with wrong altimeter settings..... Having flown in the UK I have looked back and thought that it was a touch dangerous having a training area so close to a major airport. I would imagine FAJS ATC have better things to do than chase off initial solo students.

[AlanM]

Eltorro

FIrst of all - this is my first visit to the African forum!

I work on radar in the UK - in the South East providing Approach Services to Biggin Hill, London City and Heathrow SVFR/IFR.

Away from the LHR zone the base of controleld airspace is 2500'. We have only 2 levels for London City traffic avail (ins descend on a silent handover to 4000' and the outbounds must be level at 4000'!)

Therefore we have to get them down to 3000' asap. We get lots of problems and RT congestion with aircraft worrying about traffic indicating at 2500' below us! I can understnad why they are worried - esp as today I had a helicopter that was at 2400 and "Ballooned" up to 2700 in a thermal.

We try to appease them with a short sharp reply of "Believed to be outside controlled airspace VFR indicating 2.4"

Is this the same problem?

Alan

P.S. Came in here to find an operator of old aircraft to fly me and Mrs M around in Jan/Feb 04 from either FAJS/Lanseria/Mid Rand or even from the Cape

[4HolerPoler]

A lot of Joburg city is around 5500' AMSL- some even higher; the issue is squishing all the VFR traffic under the TMA, which is only 2500' above the ground. As Goldfish Jack points out there's no easy answer to it.

4HP

[CAACHIEF]

4HolerPoler

There does not need to be RT congestion if u simply communicate once, on becoming under radar control and then follow routing/ altitude and simply report exiting TMA/radar control area. In that way the radar folks have you identified and are clear about your intentions. This is exactly my expeirience going accross JFK TMA without a flight plan filed on the ground. (filed in the air). They simply gave squauw, altitude and heading and left you alone until you exited their control. By the way this has beenmy experience in the JNB TMA as well. Worked very well when returing into the setting sun on a hazy winter late afternoon.

[EltorroLoco]

Thanx 4 all the replies dudes, good 2 c that this concerns lotsa people.

I must agree with Rhodie, that more rules are not called for, this just tends to complicate the issue, and create more loophole for both ATC and pilot.

Also CAAChief has a good idea, 2 call 4 controlled VFR. The only thing is 124.5 is quite busy already, so any more may give rise 2 delays 4 scheduled flights (as if they are not delayed enuf already). Another idea would B 119.5, the info frequency, but they are also understaffed so it is combined with 127.4. Unfortunately, staff always remains a factor in solving the problem long term.

I think, short term we should raise our MSA to 9000' to give a safety margin. There is no real need for a/c inbound for the ILS to B @ 8000' anyway, and the others for the satellite airfields would just have 2 descend a little later. This is not perfect, but would B safer until a more permanent solution could B found.

Lemme know wot u fink?