Is it really safe?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stelios (ha!) - I take it you have little experience operating into Greek joint civ/mil 'holiday' airports...many have arrester gear (although 'different' ATC) and it appears you have a fairly explict brief as to how to operate accordingly.
What's so unsafe? Are all military airports unsafe unless you are in a military aircraft? What does that say about any of us in civil aviation? I don't see the point you are trying to make other than you can copy and paste a large pdf file.
If you don't think it is safe, I take it that you, as a professional, will be refusing to operate into RAF St MXXXan. Or is not really that dangerous? Please explain.
I'm a 'tiny' bit confused!
What's so unsafe? Are all military airports unsafe unless you are in a military aircraft? What does that say about any of us in civil aviation? I don't see the point you are trying to make other than you can copy and paste a large pdf file.
If you don't think it is safe, I take it that you, as a professional, will be refusing to operate into RAF St MXXXan. Or is not really that dangerous? Please explain.
I'm a 'tiny' bit confused!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expect to be passed to London Military 126.075 after passing XXX.
runways have threshold bars but no numerical runway designators.
Having operated corporate into this particular airfield with no great problems (traffic density isn't a major worry
) I have to ask - what's your problem?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: GB
Age: 69
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you may have experience in operating into this or similar places.
On the face of it it sounds as if one shouldn't even attempt to go there because of the various factors that are in the brief.
This is a passenger flight with a 150 people on board. They don't know my brief and think that they are as safe as ever, like going into Stansted for instance (as safe as it is perceived by them).
I know that potentially it isn't because:
If it's sunny there'll be a load of PPLs filling the sky, if not then there'll be loads of UNcontrolled Military Fast Jets to try to avoid etc..... without adequate radar coverage.
And inconveniently but NOT dangerously there's no de icing or fuel readily available, no airstart etc......
As a commander I think I am quite right to be concerned about these things as it's blatantly part of my job!
Now those of you that have experience in and out of there, may have never seen another soul around which may well be the case, but going just by the brief in front of me I PERCEIVE it quite
Loony.
Thats's all.
So if anyone does have that experience, please enlighten us a bit about the REAL conditions to be expected.
On the face of it it sounds as if one shouldn't even attempt to go there because of the various factors that are in the brief.
This is a passenger flight with a 150 people on board. They don't know my brief and think that they are as safe as ever, like going into Stansted for instance (as safe as it is perceived by them).
I know that potentially it isn't because:
If it's sunny there'll be a load of PPLs filling the sky, if not then there'll be loads of UNcontrolled Military Fast Jets to try to avoid etc..... without adequate radar coverage.
And inconveniently but NOT dangerously there's no de icing or fuel readily available, no airstart etc......
As a commander I think I am quite right to be concerned about these things as it's blatantly part of my job!
Now those of you that have experience in and out of there, may have never seen another soul around which may well be the case, but going just by the brief in front of me I PERCEIVE it quite
Loony.
Thats's all.
So if anyone does have that experience, please enlighten us a bit about the REAL conditions to be expected.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's sunny there'll be a load of PPLs filling the sky, if not then there'll be loads of UNcontrolled Military Fast Jets to try to avoid etc..... without adequate radar coverage.
The Harpies flew in to Prestwick for over a decade before it had controlled airspace. Then there's Teesside which was/is unattached to the Airways structure, plus Blackpool, etc, etc.
It's nothing new.
Some of you may have experience in operating into this or similar places. On the face of it it sounds as if one shouldn't even attempt to go there because of the various factors that are in the brief.
Seems the company brief is giving you a lot of information to make the airmanship aspects easier for you. It's an environment that pilots all over the UK face every day and handle as safely as possible.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Highlands
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your class E would protect against flights in IMC crossing an approach at relatively low level. Since the traffic density in IMC at low level is very much lower than in VMC at low level, the risk of collision is small to start with. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no collisions in IMC in the UK for 30 years, probably much longer. Of those potential collisions with IFR flights, most of the transiting IFR flights would be talking to local ATC, whether there's class E there or not. Thus the class E would be very unlikely to be effective in actually reducing the probability of a collision.
The much greater comparative risk is a collision with a VFR flight crossing the approach track in VMC. The traffic density is much higher, and the high workload of an approach means that the ability to see-and-avoid a random VFR flight, which in a fast aircraft is very limited at the best of times, is low. And VFR flights are less likely to be in contact with ATC. But your class E does not prevent a VFR flight from flying right through the localiser at 3 miles.
If you need controlled airspace, you need at least class D airspace.
The much greater comparative risk is a collision with a VFR flight crossing the approach track in VMC. The traffic density is much higher, and the high workload of an approach means that the ability to see-and-avoid a random VFR flight, which in a fast aircraft is very limited at the best of times, is low. And VFR flights are less likely to be in contact with ATC. But your class E does not prevent a VFR flight from flying right through the localiser at 3 miles.
If you need controlled airspace, you need at least class D airspace.
There is a reluctance in the UK to give more of the FIR over to the world of civilian regulated airspace. Much more so now than say 30 years ago. I'm quite convinced that the number of aircraft movements and passenger figures at some of today's regional airports in class G would be be on a par if not higher than the figures which led to the introduction of Class D CTZs at many airfields decades ago. It is almost as if the FIR has been 'over fished' and if we give any more airspace over to the formation of new CTZs, then there wont be enough left for PPLs, Military or GA traffic.
I don't want to step on anybody's toes, and I understand the strength of feeling of those who might say, 'why should you have all the airspace?'
That is why Class E might be an answer.
I don't think class E would make a significant difference to the risk, and it would significantly increase the complexity of the airspace.
If CTZs were given away cheaply in the past, it is not an excuse for making Airspace changes well nigh impossible today. Any body looked at CAP725 by the way? Hmmmm
CAP 725 - Airspace Change Process Guidance
I think you make some excellent, well balanced points, HD.
What I'd like to see is a move towards a classification that doesn't revolve around meteorological conditions. Though it's somehow intuitive that avoiding collisions is related to the ability to look out the window, our current system overrates the capability of the average pilot to see and avoid random traffic.
I'd like to see:
1) Airspace in which all traffic is separated by ATC, (participation is mandatory).
2) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is always available. (current class F, and arguably the same as class E in VMC)
3) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is provided on an ad hoc basis. (current class G)
even if the separation standards could be varied for different types of flight.
We'll see how class N, K, U or whatever stacks up against that.
What I'd like to see is a move towards a classification that doesn't revolve around meteorological conditions. Though it's somehow intuitive that avoiding collisions is related to the ability to look out the window, our current system overrates the capability of the average pilot to see and avoid random traffic.
I'd like to see:
1) Airspace in which all traffic is separated by ATC, (participation is mandatory).
2) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is always available. (current class F, and arguably the same as class E in VMC)
3) Airspace in which participating traffic is separated, and a separation service is provided on an ad hoc basis. (current class G)
even if the separation standards could be varied for different types of flight.
We'll see how class N, K, U or whatever stacks up against that.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I am confused (wouldn't be the first time.) but how would class E airspace make anything harder??? Most of our airspace is class E, while most of our towered airports are class D or greater. We have very little class G through out the US airspace. It doesn't make things difficult at all...
regards
regards
The difference in philosophy between UK and US airspace structure is about as close to a religious divide as you get in aviation (yes, I'm including the Airbus vs Boeing rubbish!).
The fundamental premise underlying class E airspace is that if you're in VMC you can see the other (silent VFR) guy coming, and if you're in IMC you can't, so you'd better get help from ATC i.e. that see and avoid is to some extent effective. If you don't believe in see and avoid, you might as well make the airspace class G rather than E.
The FAA seems to believe in the premise, to the extent that most of the lower airspace in the CONUS is class E. It also has been known to hand out suspensions to pilots who fly without a clearance in class G, on the careless and reckless catchall.
The UK CAA by contrast seems to not believe in the premise. Most of our airspace is either A/B (separate everything regardless of conditions) or F/G (separate nothing, unless it chooses to participate).
The premise of see-and-avoid makes good sense, and, like many other premises that make good sense, is completely unsupported by scientific evidence. All the evidence points to the conclusion that unassisted see-and-avoid has very low efficacy enroute, and that traffic density is the dominant factor in the probability of collision. Met conditions are irrelevant, except in as much as the traffic density is usually lower in IMC!
Of course I paint that as a black-and-white picture. Risk management is a myriad of shades of grey, but I think the extremes help to follow the principles.
To answer your specific question of why class E makes things harder, the UK does not have the ATC infrastructure to support universal class E as in the US. Any class E would have to be specific zones, which would make navigation in already congested airspace even more taxing for both VFR and IFR, and would make enroute IFR outside the airways structure even more difficult than it already is.
The fundamental premise underlying class E airspace is that if you're in VMC you can see the other (silent VFR) guy coming, and if you're in IMC you can't, so you'd better get help from ATC i.e. that see and avoid is to some extent effective. If you don't believe in see and avoid, you might as well make the airspace class G rather than E.
The FAA seems to believe in the premise, to the extent that most of the lower airspace in the CONUS is class E. It also has been known to hand out suspensions to pilots who fly without a clearance in class G, on the careless and reckless catchall.
The UK CAA by contrast seems to not believe in the premise. Most of our airspace is either A/B (separate everything regardless of conditions) or F/G (separate nothing, unless it chooses to participate).
The premise of see-and-avoid makes good sense, and, like many other premises that make good sense, is completely unsupported by scientific evidence. All the evidence points to the conclusion that unassisted see-and-avoid has very low efficacy enroute, and that traffic density is the dominant factor in the probability of collision. Met conditions are irrelevant, except in as much as the traffic density is usually lower in IMC!
Of course I paint that as a black-and-white picture. Risk management is a myriad of shades of grey, but I think the extremes help to follow the principles.
To answer your specific question of why class E makes things harder, the UK does not have the ATC infrastructure to support universal class E as in the US. Any class E would have to be specific zones, which would make navigation in already congested airspace even more taxing for both VFR and IFR, and would make enroute IFR outside the airways structure even more difficult than it already is.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bookworm;
Hmmmm, interesting concept... I have visited a couple of units in the UK both enroute and terminal and I didn't see much difference in the folks working the traffic from ours, the equipment was of course different as were the procedures, but I didn't see anything that would keep you from working everything as class E. <shrug> I didn't see anything as extra workload for an issue, nor would you have to beef up your staff to handle extra workload. Please let me know if I am wrong with this, I am always interested in the finer points <G>. I don't know where you work in the UK, but you if you do enroute stuff down south, you can find Andy Amor and he can tell you a bit about how we do it here as he has sat with me a while back. Would LOVE to have him back to see the new stuff <G>...
regards
Scott
Hmmmm, interesting concept... I have visited a couple of units in the UK both enroute and terminal and I didn't see much difference in the folks working the traffic from ours, the equipment was of course different as were the procedures, but I didn't see anything that would keep you from working everything as class E. <shrug> I didn't see anything as extra workload for an issue, nor would you have to beef up your staff to handle extra workload. Please let me know if I am wrong with this, I am always interested in the finer points <G>. I don't know where you work in the UK, but you if you do enroute stuff down south, you can find Andy Amor and he can tell you a bit about how we do it here as he has sat with me a while back. Would LOVE to have him back to see the new stuff <G>...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you find this thread interesting, many similar points are raised in response to my posting "skirting around ATZ's & MATZ's" which you can find at:
PS (for Stelios): check your personal messages for more on your comments about a particular airfield.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179125&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 23rd Jun 2005 at 22:29.
