Avoiding Danger Areas
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoiding Danger Areas
A few days ago there were major changes to the Scottish TMA. The main one was to resectorise the Talla sector to increase the TSF and reduce delays. This was a complete bollocks for reasons I won't go into here and the sector split has not been brought in until something is done to make it (more) acceptable.
However, the associated airspace changes have been brought in, and not just the TMA - a new airway, P18, has been established between NEW and ADN (but only for a few hours in the morning and at weekends).
One little gem that the new TMA airspce has thrown up is that D510 (Spadeadam) when active upto 180 like today must now be avoided by 5 miles. This, apparently, is going to become the norm when it comes to danger area avoidance and they just made a 'pre-emptive strike' with Spadeadam when the changes were introduced a few days ago.
There is much else wrong with what is now an unnecessarily complex bit of airspace but it is this point that really gets my back up as it has, in effect, made the job harder rather than easier. We were always told that danger areas had buffers built into them but that is obviously no longer the case. And it is coming to all of us who work airspcace abutted by danger areas - D406 is one that springs to mind that will affect S29 at Manchester, S3 and S4 at Swanwick and our Galloway and Deancross sectors. In effect the DCS-WAL track will not be available.
I'm told that it is part of European harmonisation. Thanks for nowt, guys...
However, the associated airspace changes have been brought in, and not just the TMA - a new airway, P18, has been established between NEW and ADN (but only for a few hours in the morning and at weekends).
One little gem that the new TMA airspce has thrown up is that D510 (Spadeadam) when active upto 180 like today must now be avoided by 5 miles. This, apparently, is going to become the norm when it comes to danger area avoidance and they just made a 'pre-emptive strike' with Spadeadam when the changes were introduced a few days ago.
There is much else wrong with what is now an unnecessarily complex bit of airspace but it is this point that really gets my back up as it has, in effect, made the job harder rather than easier. We were always told that danger areas had buffers built into them but that is obviously no longer the case. And it is coming to all of us who work airspcace abutted by danger areas - D406 is one that springs to mind that will affect S29 at Manchester, S3 and S4 at Swanwick and our Galloway and Deancross sectors. In effect the DCS-WAL track will not be available.
I'm told that it is part of European harmonisation. Thanks for nowt, guys...
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix Bit unfair blaming the Europeans, try the Southerners
If you think that's dumb there's a rotr in N. Germany, EEL - TUSKA
with danger areas 5n.m. each side of the centreline
If you think that's dumb there's a rotr in N. Germany, EEL - TUSKA
with danger areas 5n.m. each side of the centreline
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Lon More, I wasn't really blaming the Europeans, I'm more upset that we are apparently going to have to comply with some rule that will make it more difficult for us to do our jobs. The people here who have agreed to comply with the rule are the real villains.
Flower, I don't know where this is written down but it is definitely the case with D510 at the moment and we have been told that it will happen everywhere eventually.
Flower, I don't know where this is written down but it is definitely the case with D510 at the moment and we have been told that it will happen everywhere eventually.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually we CAN blame the Europeans .. at least for the principle. And we can blame the UK authorities for their method of application of the requirement (which again complies with one of the European rule options, so we can blame the Europeans again for giving them that option 
).
You can find all the details in the Eurocontrol Manual For Airspace Planning - Common Guidelines. This is a document which forms part of the European Flexible Use of Airspace Concept and has been signed up to by ECAC nations, including the UK.
Part of that document details the guidelines for 'Principles of Design For Airspace Structures'. In particular the following principles apply:
1.4.2.2 - Second Principle - Airspace Efficiency
The dimensions of airspace structures should be established to encompass the absolute minimum airspace necessary to encompass operations.
I expect that the UK Ministry of Defence and the UK CAA will vehemently say that they have done so, regardless of whether there is observed activity in an area or not
1.4.2.3 - Third Principle - Containment of Operations
The published limits should contain enough airspace to ensure that the activity in that airspace structure will not endanger non participating aircraft operating at or near its published limits.
It could be argued that if there is not a sufficient buffer within the Danger Area (or Temporary Segregated Airspace (TSA) or Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) as it will become in the future) such that aircraft have to be vectored clear by standard separation within Controlled Airspace (CAS) whilst the TSA/DA is outside then this principle is not being met ... however, read on.
1.4.2.4 - Fourth Principle - Protected Airspace
Airspace structures should be established in such a way that associated protected airspaces do not overlap.
Looks like the UK CAA failed this part of the test
1.4.2.5 - Fifth Principle - Airspace Boundaries
Distinct/individual boundaries should preferably be defined for activities in adjacent airspace. However, where it is necessaryto define a common boundary, appropriate measures governing operations in the proximity of the common boundary should be established.
It is this little gem which lets those responsible for UK airspace design get off the hook for the Third Principle.
Paragraph 1.5 then goes on to detail the options available to airspace designers and operating authorities/air navigation service providers for the management of protected airspace with common boundaries. In particular, Paragraph 1.5.4 shows the various ways in which tactical separation can be applied to prevent the waste of airspace, for example using radar vectoring. It is this paragraph which lays down the various 'rules' which can be used and is no doubt the one being used by the UK CAA in the design of this airspace and the projection of its policies. And of course they will be the 'rules' which will be rolled out Europe wide under Single Skies and the development of the Flexible Use of Airspace.
There are three options available.
Option 1 is for aircraft on both sides of the common boundary to be under ATC control and for each to be 'known traffic'. Separation minima can then be agreed in respect of aircraft rather than against airspace.
Option 2 is for the State to declare that where Option 1 can't be met, then each 'protected airspace' user agrees to provide half the required separation minima from the common boundary. So if 5NM separation was needed then the ATC unit would provide 2.5NM separation from the boundary to its traffic, and the aircraft operating in the DA/TSA/TRA would also have to stay 2.5NM from their side of the boundary. (A common sense compromise I would say !!)
Or then there is Option 3 which the UK CAA seem to have gone for in this case (can't upset their former paymasters and employers in MoD can we now chaps
). That puts the onus on traffic in CAS to be provided with a minimum separation from the common boundary, plus any required buffer. Seems to me this is what has been applied in the airspace BALIX talks about.
It does of course have future ramifications for anywhere in the UK where a DA/TSA/TRA abuts CAS. I suspect that the CAA will go for the path of least resistance and push for Option 3 every time. The record of UK Air Navigation Service Providers winning any battles against the MoD when it comes to airspace issues is not too encouraging.
Stand by your 'principles' folks and demand the CAA complies with them all, not just the Fifth Principle because it is easy for them and pushes the onus on the operators to solve the issue !!
).You can find all the details in the Eurocontrol Manual For Airspace Planning - Common Guidelines. This is a document which forms part of the European Flexible Use of Airspace Concept and has been signed up to by ECAC nations, including the UK.
Part of that document details the guidelines for 'Principles of Design For Airspace Structures'. In particular the following principles apply:
1.4.2.2 - Second Principle - Airspace Efficiency
The dimensions of airspace structures should be established to encompass the absolute minimum airspace necessary to encompass operations.
I expect that the UK Ministry of Defence and the UK CAA will vehemently say that they have done so, regardless of whether there is observed activity in an area or not
1.4.2.3 - Third Principle - Containment of Operations
The published limits should contain enough airspace to ensure that the activity in that airspace structure will not endanger non participating aircraft operating at or near its published limits.
It could be argued that if there is not a sufficient buffer within the Danger Area (or Temporary Segregated Airspace (TSA) or Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) as it will become in the future) such that aircraft have to be vectored clear by standard separation within Controlled Airspace (CAS) whilst the TSA/DA is outside then this principle is not being met ... however, read on.
1.4.2.4 - Fourth Principle - Protected Airspace
Airspace structures should be established in such a way that associated protected airspaces do not overlap.
Looks like the UK CAA failed this part of the test
1.4.2.5 - Fifth Principle - Airspace Boundaries
Distinct/individual boundaries should preferably be defined for activities in adjacent airspace. However, where it is necessaryto define a common boundary, appropriate measures governing operations in the proximity of the common boundary should be established.
It is this little gem which lets those responsible for UK airspace design get off the hook for the Third Principle.
Paragraph 1.5 then goes on to detail the options available to airspace designers and operating authorities/air navigation service providers for the management of protected airspace with common boundaries. In particular, Paragraph 1.5.4 shows the various ways in which tactical separation can be applied to prevent the waste of airspace, for example using radar vectoring. It is this paragraph which lays down the various 'rules' which can be used and is no doubt the one being used by the UK CAA in the design of this airspace and the projection of its policies. And of course they will be the 'rules' which will be rolled out Europe wide under Single Skies and the development of the Flexible Use of Airspace.
There are three options available.
Option 1 is for aircraft on both sides of the common boundary to be under ATC control and for each to be 'known traffic'. Separation minima can then be agreed in respect of aircraft rather than against airspace.
Option 2 is for the State to declare that where Option 1 can't be met, then each 'protected airspace' user agrees to provide half the required separation minima from the common boundary. So if 5NM separation was needed then the ATC unit would provide 2.5NM separation from the boundary to its traffic, and the aircraft operating in the DA/TSA/TRA would also have to stay 2.5NM from their side of the boundary. (A common sense compromise I would say !!)
Or then there is Option 3 which the UK CAA seem to have gone for in this case (can't upset their former paymasters and employers in MoD can we now chaps
). That puts the onus on traffic in CAS to be provided with a minimum separation from the common boundary, plus any required buffer. Seems to me this is what has been applied in the airspace BALIX talks about.It does of course have future ramifications for anywhere in the UK where a DA/TSA/TRA abuts CAS. I suspect that the CAA will go for the path of least resistance and push for Option 3 every time. The record of UK Air Navigation Service Providers winning any battles against the MoD when it comes to airspace issues is not too encouraging.
Stand by your 'principles' folks and demand the CAA complies with them all, not just the Fifth Principle because it is easy for them and pushes the onus on the operators to solve the issue !!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some sense in the rule given that ac within the DA (of whatever type) are presumably operating under RAS/RIS/FIS, whilst those operating outside it are required to maintain 5nm (depending on distance from radar head?). However, it seems to take something away from the job of the controller.
The problem with the DAs such as Spadeadam is that they operate from the ground up and therefore could have ac climbing rapidly from low level, staying within the lateral and vertical limits of the range, but effectively (due, for example, to rate of climb) preventing airliners from maintaining Standard Separation. Of course, in the case of Class A Airspace, it would be reasonable to 'assume' that the ac would not penetrate Class A (or D?) airspace unless it was receiving a service from you or was coordinated.
The TDAs/MDAs that are active above FL245 are a slightly different issue. Ac operating under a RIS at, say, FL310 can theoretically fly as close as they like to traffic co-level outside the lateral limits of the MDA which is in receipt of a RC Service, their controller only being required to pass Traffic Information/Advice as appropriate. Under such circumstances, the 5nm buffer would seem to make sense, though (IMHO) it still takes some of the responsibility away from the ATCO. By the way, don't be surprised if ac operating within an MDA extend into the Class B MRSA outside it.
Two Qs to finish with, if I may:
1. At a meeting I attended last year, it was agreed by the Fighter Controllers that Military ATC transiting ac (with permission) through active MDAs should be allowed to apply the same services (RIS/RAS/FIS) as if the transiting ac were part of the mission using the range. The existing rules require(d) that they apply RC above FL245 iaw the Background Class (B) of the airspace - daft! Has anything come of this?
2. Being lazy here. When is the MRSA boundary due to reduce to FL195 in the UK?
STH
The problem with the DAs such as Spadeadam is that they operate from the ground up and therefore could have ac climbing rapidly from low level, staying within the lateral and vertical limits of the range, but effectively (due, for example, to rate of climb) preventing airliners from maintaining Standard Separation. Of course, in the case of Class A Airspace, it would be reasonable to 'assume' that the ac would not penetrate Class A (or D?) airspace unless it was receiving a service from you or was coordinated.
The TDAs/MDAs that are active above FL245 are a slightly different issue. Ac operating under a RIS at, say, FL310 can theoretically fly as close as they like to traffic co-level outside the lateral limits of the MDA which is in receipt of a RC Service, their controller only being required to pass Traffic Information/Advice as appropriate. Under such circumstances, the 5nm buffer would seem to make sense, though (IMHO) it still takes some of the responsibility away from the ATCO. By the way, don't be surprised if ac operating within an MDA extend into the Class B MRSA outside it.
Two Qs to finish with, if I may:
1. At a meeting I attended last year, it was agreed by the Fighter Controllers that Military ATC transiting ac (with permission) through active MDAs should be allowed to apply the same services (RIS/RAS/FIS) as if the transiting ac were part of the mission using the range. The existing rules require(d) that they apply RC above FL245 iaw the Background Class (B) of the airspace - daft! Has anything come of this?
2. Being lazy here. When is the MRSA boundary due to reduce to FL195 in the UK?
STH
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toppam
All airspce above FL195 is due to become Class C in about a year. Should be good news - known traffic environment, radar control etc - but its introduction will no doubt be botched so as to open up another can of worms.
pprune radar
Thanks for the references. Just emphasizes that we controllers are the ones likely to be shafted by these new regulations. Perhaps we should be looking to drastically reduce the TSF on affected sectors. Get the airlines moaning about delays and something might get done
All airspce above FL195 is due to become Class C in about a year. Should be good news - known traffic environment, radar control etc - but its introduction will no doubt be botched so as to open up another can of worms.
pprune radar
Thanks for the references. Just emphasizes that we controllers are the ones likely to be shafted by these new regulations. Perhaps we should be looking to drastically reduce the TSF on affected sectors. Get the airlines moaning about delays and something might get done
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK guys, calm down. First of all the Scottish Changes have increased, not decreased the amount of CAS available to control within adding extra protection, not less. Secondly all these changes are part of a consultation process with all parties involved. It was obviously put there for a reason. It is not a matter of one party trying to "do one" on the other. Third, Spadeadam is an existing airspace structure. All NEW airspace structures will conform to the new regulations when introduced.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: Sir Toppam's Qs
STH,
Answer to your first question. I believe that Mil ATC can now transit an active MDA under RAS / RIS / FIS above 245. (Remember seeing something somewhere a couple of months ago!) However, as was previously the case, the Mil ATC Traffic must be co-ordinated with the MDA users, having first gained that user's permission. Therefore, as you have to be co-ordinated to transit through and invariably the agreement is going to be to maintain a set level on a set hdg, IMHO then whether it's RC or not doesn't make much odds!!
Also ref your point about traffic in the vicinity of MDAs & above 245; It is the responsibility of the traffic outside the MDA to take standard sep on the traffic inside the MDA (as long as it maintains inside!). This is aided by the fact that all the air route centrelines give the requisite lateral clearance. (This is PPrune Radar's option 3, I believe?)
Regards, ADIS
Answer to your first question. I believe that Mil ATC can now transit an active MDA under RAS / RIS / FIS above 245. (Remember seeing something somewhere a couple of months ago!) However, as was previously the case, the Mil ATC Traffic must be co-ordinated with the MDA users, having first gained that user's permission. Therefore, as you have to be co-ordinated to transit through and invariably the agreement is going to be to maintain a set level on a set hdg, IMHO then whether it's RC or not doesn't make much odds!!
Also ref your point about traffic in the vicinity of MDAs & above 245; It is the responsibility of the traffic outside the MDA to take standard sep on the traffic inside the MDA (as long as it maintains inside!). This is aided by the fact that all the air route centrelines give the requisite lateral clearance. (This is PPrune Radar's option 3, I believe?)
Regards, ADIS
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware, ICAO requirements dictated that danger areas were of such a size that they included a "buffer area" suficient to ensure that there was absolutely no hazard to any traffic at the boundary.
Thus unless we have had mortar shells topping out at 4999ft when the danger area goes up to 5000 or landing just inside the boundary then the idea of a buffer is an old one indeed.
Are we seriously going to expect for example Ireland to keep all it's traffic well inside the FIR boundary just because the UK has placed some danger areas right up against it?
Pull the other one.
As for blaming Europe - does anyone believe that the UK had no part in the formation of such requirements...........perhaps they will claim that they did not understand what they were signing up to. Can't blame Europe for the inability of CAA officials to read and ask questions at the meetings where such matters are discussed!
Regards,
DFC
Thus unless we have had mortar shells topping out at 4999ft when the danger area goes up to 5000 or landing just inside the boundary then the idea of a buffer is an old one indeed.
Are we seriously going to expect for example Ireland to keep all it's traffic well inside the FIR boundary just because the UK has placed some danger areas right up against it?
Pull the other one.
As for blaming Europe - does anyone believe that the UK had no part in the formation of such requirements...........perhaps they will claim that they did not understand what they were signing up to. Can't blame Europe for the inability of CAA officials to read and ask questions at the meetings where such matters are discussed!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern England
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At ScATCC (Mil) we only take aircraft through an active MDA once we have received the appropriate permission to cross (from ASACS or the aircrew operating autonomously). We then provide the ATS equivalent to the transit level (ie above FL245 - Radar Control). We have not been given any instructions to the contrary.
As for the P18 extension from NEW to ADN - it is not an airway! (although everyone calls it one) It is a CDR - hence Class D airspace and a nice shade of purple on the Mil UK En-route charts. I had such an interesting conversation with AIDU last week............
MATZ
As for the P18 extension from NEW to ADN - it is not an airway! (although everyone calls it one) It is a CDR - hence Class D airspace and a nice shade of purple on the Mil UK En-route charts. I had such an interesting conversation with AIDU last week............
MATZ
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last call for Mr
Whilst this might be a touch of thread creep - I specifically started it to discuss the situation regarding danger area avoidance - I can't let your comments go unchallenged. Yes, we do get a bit more controlled airspace to play with, but only until 0900 in the morning on weekdays and H24 at the weekend. However, the bases of the existing airways have been raised leading to more leveling off of aircraft and highter RT workload. Before we could descend to FL140 in the Spadeadam area (assuming it was only active to 5500ft). Now it if FL170, at all times. In fact it was higher yesteday (195) as Spadeadam was active to 18000ft. As for that new airspace out to the east, it might as well not be there at all.
I'll grant you that the loweing of base of the airway to the east of TLA is not without merit, though some of the advantages are rather nullified by the raising of the base of B4 as detailed above.
Getting back to the original thread, though, I had a bash at steering a number of Edinburgh inbounds five miles around Spadeadam yesterday. Stick in a couple of Glasgow inbounds as well and you rapidly run out of room. I would suggest that the times we have to do this the TSF should be significantly dropped
The whole package of aispace changes has been a shambles and those responsible for them should be all due a serious bollocking from senior management. I expect, though, they will all be picking up healthy bonuses...
Whilst this might be a touch of thread creep - I specifically started it to discuss the situation regarding danger area avoidance - I can't let your comments go unchallenged. Yes, we do get a bit more controlled airspace to play with, but only until 0900 in the morning on weekdays and H24 at the weekend. However, the bases of the existing airways have been raised leading to more leveling off of aircraft and highter RT workload. Before we could descend to FL140 in the Spadeadam area (assuming it was only active to 5500ft). Now it if FL170, at all times. In fact it was higher yesteday (195) as Spadeadam was active to 18000ft. As for that new airspace out to the east, it might as well not be there at all.
I'll grant you that the loweing of base of the airway to the east of TLA is not without merit, though some of the advantages are rather nullified by the raising of the base of B4 as detailed above.
Getting back to the original thread, though, I had a bash at steering a number of Edinburgh inbounds five miles around Spadeadam yesterday. Stick in a couple of Glasgow inbounds as well and you rapidly run out of room. I would suggest that the times we have to do this the TSF should be significantly dropped
The whole package of aispace changes has been a shambles and those responsible for them should be all due a serious bollocking from senior management. I expect, though, they will all be picking up healthy bonuses...
Last edited by BALIX; 1st Mar 2005 at 10:33.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATZ,
As for the P18 extension from NEW to ADN - it is not an airway! (although everyone calls it one) It is a CDR - hence Class D airspace..........
Some definitions for you;
Control area - controlled airspace of defined dimensions extending upwards from a height above the surface to another height.
Airway - A control area in the form of a corridor normally aligned on navigation aids.
The airway P18 is indeed class D..........read the folowing from the AIP ENR 1-4-7
2.4.1.2 The following sections of Airways are notified as Class D Airspace during the notified hours of watch of the appropriate Air
Traffic Control Unit with vertical and lateral limits as defined in ENR 3.1:
(a) B226 PIPAR to Talla VOR TLA;
(b) L10 Belfast VOR BEL to Isle of Man VOR IOM;
(c) L602 Talla VOR TLA to HAVEN;
(d) N57 Talla VOR TLA to 552112N 0032102W;
(e) N601 GRICE to 552239N 0031545W and the fillet of N601 east of the line joining the points 551735N 0025427W -
544628N 0023625W - 541500N 0021001W (See ENR 3-1-1-47);
(f) N615 Glasgow VOR GOW to 550826N 0040603W;
(g) P6 541212N 0043605W (abm Isle of Man VOR IOM) to Belfast VOR BEL;
(h) P18 Aberdeen VOR ADN to Newcastle VOR NEW (All Levels) and Newcastle VOR NEW to TILNI (below FL 125);
As you can see several airways are class D airspace for all or part of the route.
Making a route a conditional route (CDR) only tells pilots that there are conditions that affect it's availability. Furthermore, just cause a CDR is only available for use say 0900 to 1200 on the first day of a Blue Moon does not necessarily mean that the airspace does not exist outside these times - it simply means that us pilots can not plan to use it.
regards,
DFC
As for the P18 extension from NEW to ADN - it is not an airway! (although everyone calls it one) It is a CDR - hence Class D airspace..........
Some definitions for you;
Control area - controlled airspace of defined dimensions extending upwards from a height above the surface to another height.
Airway - A control area in the form of a corridor normally aligned on navigation aids.
The airway P18 is indeed class D..........read the folowing from the AIP ENR 1-4-7
2.4.1.2 The following sections of Airways are notified as Class D Airspace during the notified hours of watch of the appropriate Air
Traffic Control Unit with vertical and lateral limits as defined in ENR 3.1:
(a) B226 PIPAR to Talla VOR TLA;
(b) L10 Belfast VOR BEL to Isle of Man VOR IOM;
(c) L602 Talla VOR TLA to HAVEN;
(d) N57 Talla VOR TLA to 552112N 0032102W;
(e) N601 GRICE to 552239N 0031545W and the fillet of N601 east of the line joining the points 551735N 0025427W -
544628N 0023625W - 541500N 0021001W (See ENR 3-1-1-47);
(f) N615 Glasgow VOR GOW to 550826N 0040603W;
(g) P6 541212N 0043605W (abm Isle of Man VOR IOM) to Belfast VOR BEL;
(h) P18 Aberdeen VOR ADN to Newcastle VOR NEW (All Levels) and Newcastle VOR NEW to TILNI (below FL 125);
As you can see several airways are class D airspace for all or part of the route.
Making a route a conditional route (CDR) only tells pilots that there are conditions that affect it's availability. Furthermore, just cause a CDR is only available for use say 0900 to 1200 on the first day of a Blue Moon does not necessarily mean that the airspace does not exist outside these times - it simply means that us pilots can not plan to use it.
regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern England
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I was only recounting a very long and fairly formal conversation I had last week with AIDU about the new maps. They had a very convincing arguement about it being a CDR and Class D and not an "airway" as such
But, having got bored this morning and got all the books out - I stand corrected on the airway. (Once again the AIP minefield wins...)
Anyway, about avoiding danger areas...........
MATZ
I was only recounting a very long and fairly formal conversation I had last week with AIDU about the new maps. They had a very convincing arguement about it being a CDR and Class D and not an "airway" as such
But, having got bored this morning and got all the books out - I stand corrected on the airway. (Once again the AIP minefield wins...)
Anyway, about avoiding danger areas...........
MATZ
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MDA transit services
MATZ
I think you may want to have a chat with your friends at Lon Mil East to see how they are playing the MDA services issue.
Possibly HQ 3 Gp as well??
Agree your comments P18, Class D CDR.
STH
I think you may want to have a chat with your friends at Lon Mil East to see how they are playing the MDA services issue.
Possibly HQ 3 Gp as well??
Agree your comments P18, Class D CDR.
STH
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we need to considder what a danger area is for.
It is airspace within which activities considdered dangerout to aircraft are taking place.
This I believe that the whole idea of having an danger area is to protect all traffic by segregating them from the dangerous activities.
Are persons in Class A airspace entitled to enhansed protections from dangerous activities? Does the protection vary depending on the airspace category? - No.
As members of the public we are all entitled to be safe from the dangerous activities of the military in peace time and the authorities are required to put systems in place to ensure the safety of the public.
One such measure is the Danger Area concept which ensures safety of the public from the hazard within the danger area provided that they do not enter the danger area. (Many danger areas can be entered at one's own risk).
Thus one has to ask is the human being in the C172 passing just weat of the danger area boundary in Class G airspace below the airways less entitled to the protection afforded than the human being in another C172 just above flying within the airway structure.
Or put another way, is it acceptable that a small percentage of aircraft just outside the boundary of a danger area could be shot down by weapons fired from withoin that area?
I believe that considdering that above most right thinking people would say that danger areas should be big enough to ensure the safety off all persons who remain outside the boundary and not simply those that remain 5 or 10 miles away from the boundary.
Thus unless Spadeadam expands, they are going to be restricted because the authorities can not say that it is unsafe for an aircraft to be within 5nm of the danger area in the same geographic location as another aircraft that can fly just outside the boundary!
Of course, flying a military aircraft in low level, general handling and ACM is not considdered dangerous because it takes place in Class G all over the UK without the public being afforded any segregation or protection.
If the authorities considder that it is necessary for airways traffic to be 5nm away from Spadeadam because of the posibility of an aircraft getting right up to the boundary during acm then how can they risk having any aircraft closer than 5nm from any class G where un announced acm and flying by all types of aicraft can take place right up to the boundary?
I can see where Europe is going on this - Everything above FL70? being controlled meaning that there are no edges to the airways (ATS routes) to worry about and thus the only worry is other regulated airspace for which they have place a requirement for a buffer...........which most countries already have included in the size of the danger area so they won't have such a problem!
Regards,
DFC
It is airspace within which activities considdered dangerout to aircraft are taking place.
This I believe that the whole idea of having an danger area is to protect all traffic by segregating them from the dangerous activities.
Are persons in Class A airspace entitled to enhansed protections from dangerous activities? Does the protection vary depending on the airspace category? - No.
As members of the public we are all entitled to be safe from the dangerous activities of the military in peace time and the authorities are required to put systems in place to ensure the safety of the public.
One such measure is the Danger Area concept which ensures safety of the public from the hazard within the danger area provided that they do not enter the danger area. (Many danger areas can be entered at one's own risk).
Thus one has to ask is the human being in the C172 passing just weat of the danger area boundary in Class G airspace below the airways less entitled to the protection afforded than the human being in another C172 just above flying within the airway structure.
Or put another way, is it acceptable that a small percentage of aircraft just outside the boundary of a danger area could be shot down by weapons fired from withoin that area?
I believe that considdering that above most right thinking people would say that danger areas should be big enough to ensure the safety off all persons who remain outside the boundary and not simply those that remain 5 or 10 miles away from the boundary.
Thus unless Spadeadam expands, they are going to be restricted because the authorities can not say that it is unsafe for an aircraft to be within 5nm of the danger area in the same geographic location as another aircraft that can fly just outside the boundary!
Of course, flying a military aircraft in low level, general handling and ACM is not considdered dangerous because it takes place in Class G all over the UK without the public being afforded any segregation or protection.
If the authorities considder that it is necessary for airways traffic to be 5nm away from Spadeadam because of the posibility of an aircraft getting right up to the boundary during acm then how can they risk having any aircraft closer than 5nm from any class G where un announced acm and flying by all types of aicraft can take place right up to the boundary?
I can see where Europe is going on this - Everything above FL70? being controlled meaning that there are no edges to the airways (ATS routes) to worry about and thus the only worry is other regulated airspace for which they have place a requirement for a buffer...........which most countries already have included in the size of the danger area so they won't have such a problem!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern England
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH,
In accordance with RAF ATC Orders 0415.1.a.3 (for an MDA under ASACS control):
"In accordance with Reference A (see below), ac crossing an MDA, above FL245, must do so under RC service."
Reference A - JSP 552 235.130.3:
Danger Areas. When required, the type of ATS provided to participating aircraft in active Danger Areas is to be in accordance with procedures agreed and published to meet the user requirements for the particular area. The ATS provided to non-participating aircraft cleared to cross a Danger Area during its published hours of activity but clear of the hazardous activity is, subject to any appropriate limitations, to be in accordance with the UK classification of the airspace within which the area lies.
Therefore RAS/RIS/FIS below FL245 to transit ac, and RC above FL245.
If an MDA is under E-3 control or autonomous operations Area ATC are to avoid (as per Order 0415)
If an MDA is under Area ATC control then Area ATC can provide the services as stated in the reference above. (It does not mention transit ac specifically).
I guess Lon (Mil) can not read then.....
MATZ
In accordance with RAF ATC Orders 0415.1.a.3 (for an MDA under ASACS control):
"In accordance with Reference A (see below), ac crossing an MDA, above FL245, must do so under RC service."
Reference A - JSP 552 235.130.3:
Danger Areas. When required, the type of ATS provided to participating aircraft in active Danger Areas is to be in accordance with procedures agreed and published to meet the user requirements for the particular area. The ATS provided to non-participating aircraft cleared to cross a Danger Area during its published hours of activity but clear of the hazardous activity is, subject to any appropriate limitations, to be in accordance with the UK classification of the airspace within which the area lies.
Therefore RAS/RIS/FIS below FL245 to transit ac, and RC above FL245.
If an MDA is under E-3 control or autonomous operations Area ATC are to avoid (as per Order 0415)
If an MDA is under Area ATC control then Area ATC can provide the services as stated in the reference above. (It does not mention transit ac specifically).
I guess Lon (Mil) can not read then.....
MATZ
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly harsh MATZ, especially the last line. As it happens, non-players can only transit an active MDA when they are coordinated with the existing users. It could be argued, therefore, that the actual ATS is immaterial, at whatever level. It just seems a bit odd to me that you have two ac, in the same block of airspace with one under RC and another under RIS (or even FIS).
My own view is that we are all (ATC/FC) trying to provide a safe environment and efficient service for our winged brothers and sisters. In my experience, this works best when we all help each other out and is most difficult when we don't even talk.
STH
My own view is that we are all (ATC/FC) trying to provide a safe environment and efficient service for our winged brothers and sisters. In my experience, this works best when we all help each other out and is most difficult when we don't even talk.
STH
Guest
Posts: n/a
As we all seem to be quoting references:
Temporary Reserved Area (TRA) ..normally under the jurisdiction of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by COMMON agreement for the specific use by another aviation authority and through which other traffic MAY be allowed to transit under ATC clearance.
Temporary Segregated Area (TSA) ..temporarily segregated by COMMON agreement for the exclusive use by another aviation authority through which other traffic will NOT be allowed to transit.
Also:
..When establishing TRAs/TSAs, the boundaries should encompass airspace to contain the activity and ensure VFR aircraft which are operating on the vertical or horizontal limits of the reserved/restricted area are not endangered by the activity within.
..Protected Airspace should be developed to contain each activity safely within its horizontal and vertical limits.
Temporary Reserved Area (TRA) ..normally under the jurisdiction of one aviation authority and temporarily reserved, by COMMON agreement for the specific use by another aviation authority and through which other traffic MAY be allowed to transit under ATC clearance.
Temporary Segregated Area (TSA) ..temporarily segregated by COMMON agreement for the exclusive use by another aviation authority through which other traffic will NOT be allowed to transit.
Also:
..When establishing TRAs/TSAs, the boundaries should encompass airspace to contain the activity and ensure VFR aircraft which are operating on the vertical or horizontal limits of the reserved/restricted area are not endangered by the activity within.
..Protected Airspace should be developed to contain each activity safely within its horizontal and vertical limits.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southern England
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH,
Not harsh, just abuse for London from the "poor cousins of the north".
We treat a transit clearance like a cleared flight path with the civilian controllers - keep to the agreement and you are deemed co-ordinated.
It may be odd, but we just do what the book says. Trying to change things takes longer than a tour length these days!
I fully agree that we are there to provide a safe environment/service.
Anyway, enough about transits, back to avoiding danger areas....
MATZ
Not harsh, just abuse for London from the "poor cousins of the north".
We treat a transit clearance like a cleared flight path with the civilian controllers - keep to the agreement and you are deemed co-ordinated.
It may be odd, but we just do what the book says. Trying to change things takes longer than a tour length these days!
I fully agree that we are there to provide a safe environment/service.
Anyway, enough about transits, back to avoiding danger areas....
MATZ
