Near misses at Doncaster / Robin Hood
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spekesoftly
The ANO entry you quote is concerned with:
The light aircraft operating outside the ATZ is not concerned with the order of landing. He isn't operating at that aerodrome. He is 8 miles away from it.
But let's assume he is looking at his half mil UK ICAO Topographical chart. He might see an IAP chevron associated with the aerodrome (but of course the chevron is only shown on the prevalent instrument runway, he might be on the other approach and not notice it on the chart). That will strongly recommend that he contacts the ATSU if within 10NM of the aerodrome concerned. However, he is under no obligation to, and may not even have a radio. The light aircraft is 100% entitled to be there and the aircraft on final has to be ready to meet unknown aircraft within Class G airspace. It's just something operators in Class G have to be aware of and cope with.
This could apply though:
But the interpretation of pattern is the circuit I believe. It certainly doesn't mean someone on a 8+ mile final (as an aircraft at 2500' on the ILS might be). Otherwise you could go to the other extreme and deem the 'pattern' to commence from the top of descent. And no one would be able to fly anywhere 
bundybear
I don't think there is any argument that there are practicalities which make things difficult for airline pilots. But such difficulties are no defence for not complying with the Rules of the Air, otherwise there would be exemptions granted from the rules. As I said before, the awareness factor seems to be lacking with some, and hopefully a very small number of, commercial crews. A lack of awareness of the airspace they operate in, and a therefore a lack of awareness of what they might encounter and how the law dictates that collision prevention should be carried out.
If that's what it takes to avoid a collision, then it must be done. It's what crews are trained for and will be able to do almost instinctively.
I would hope the burning of a tonne of fuel would never be a factor in making any decision concerning flight safety.
The problem with this is it depends on circumstances and geometry in each individual case. I am sure most light aircraft pilots, myself included, would do so provided it did not affect our own flight safety, and provided we see you in the first place. I might be crossing your track at an acute angle. That puts you approaching from my 8 o'clock. Maybe my aircraft type has a poor view in that quarter, particularly if I have a high wing and you are descending towards me. For example, I might be operating 1000' below cloud in VMC in my non radio Piper Cub (I wish !!) crossing you at right angles 8 miles out on final at 2500'. You pop out the cloud at 3500' just over 3 miles away from me - or about a minute from our flight paths crossing. I am high winged, I am slow, I am tracking at 90 degrees to your track but actually pointing 20 degrees to the right of my track to combat drift. You are out of my line of sight. I can't see you at all, never mind before you can see me. Meanwhile one of you is heads down flying the ILS, the other is doing pre landing checks or other tasks. So who is looking out of your cockpit ?? It's a worst worst case, but totally feasible.
I guess all I'm saying is that even with the 'difficulties' jets have with sighting and manouevring to avoid other aircraft, there is no absolution from the law and it describes how aerial collisions are to be avoided in terms of rights of way. Sometimes you are going to have to take control of the situation and spend extra fuel to keep yourselves safe.
Agreed, however as you are no doubt aware, the mandate for SSR carraige is non existent in Class G in the vicinity of aerodromes. You have to be ready to counter non transponding non radio aircraft in that environment. Any pilot placing a blind reliance on the 'fish finder' and not looking out the window is setting themselves up for a potential scare ... or worse.
Absolutely, but it's give and take. Commercial operators have no right to expect the waves to part for them all the time just because they have fare paying passengers on board or because it costs £££££ per minute they are flying. Airspace is a shared resource and Farmer Joe in his Piper Cub who is also paying £££££ in terms of his own personal budget has equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Pilots on both sides of the equation should sometimes accept that the best course of action is to forego your legal right and be flexible. The problem is that the airlines expect it to always be the little guy 
Perhaps this would be a good thread for Flying Lawyer to comment on
The ANO entry you quote is concerned with:
(6)__Order of landing
(a)__An aircraft while landing or on final approach to land shall have the right of way over other aircraft in flight or on the ground or water.
(a)__An aircraft while landing or on final approach to land shall have the right of way over other aircraft in flight or on the ground or water.
But let's assume he is looking at his half mil UK ICAO Topographical chart. He might see an IAP chevron associated with the aerodrome (but of course the chevron is only shown on the prevalent instrument runway, he might be on the other approach and not notice it on the chart). That will strongly recommend that he contacts the ATSU if within 10NM of the aerodrome concerned. However, he is under no obligation to, and may not even have a radio. The light aircraft is 100% entitled to be there and the aircraft on final has to be ready to meet unknown aircraft within Class G airspace. It's just something operators in Class G have to be aware of and cope with.
This could apply though:
_(5)__Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome, or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:
(a)__conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome, or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:
(a)__conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and
bundybear
1. Even partially configured at the top of an ILS, a 737 will still be doing 3nm/min. Small windscreens and high workload = difficulty in aquiring visually, light traffic.
2. When fully configured, a 737 is not very manouverable, and in fact, any requirement to deviate off a stable approach would almost certainly require a go-around. Any TCAS RA when fully configured does require an immediate go-around.
There goes a tonne of fuel, now even higher workload, still with the conflicting traffic in the area.
I would suggest that airmanship would dictate that a light aircraft approaching a jet on approach to an airfield, from whichever direction, should give it some room. You will be able to see us well before we can see you.
I guess all I'm saying is that even with the 'difficulties' jets have with sighting and manouevring to avoid other aircraft, there is no absolution from the law and it describes how aerial collisions are to be avoided in terms of rights of way. Sometimes you are going to have to take control of the situation and spend extra fuel to keep yourselves safe.
Also TCAS is only able to provide us with a traffic RESOLUTION, if both aircraft are using mode C. Even in the circuit at Sandtoft, Mode C helps the aircraft and radar.
Plenty of space out there, we just need to learn to share it.
Perhaps this would be a good thread for Flying Lawyer to comment on
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zones and things.
Don't know why there is so much ill-feeling about protection and safety; regulated airspace merely provides a known traffic environment and is not an exclusion zone. As for traffic levels versus safety case have a look at the Bristol Zone.....just about wider than a 737's wingspan [artistic licence]; besides which it has taken 60'000 air transport movements a year and at least a decade of asking before they get a little bit more protection next year [hopefully].
No competent pilot should fear change, but beware the bar-prop bore who hasn't read a document or bought a new map for many a day as he does his thrice yearly spin in the cobwebbed hangar queen and then says.....Gosh, is that airfield active?...must write to my MP.....outrageous!
No competent pilot should fear change, but beware the bar-prop bore who hasn't read a document or bought a new map for many a day as he does his thrice yearly spin in the cobwebbed hangar queen and then says.....Gosh, is that airfield active?...must write to my MP.....outrageous!
"Don't know why there is so much ill-feeling about protection and safety; regulated airspace merely provides a known traffic environment and is not an exclusion zone."
____________________________________________________
Couldn't agree more, 055.
It does behove ATC to play the game, but morally - never mind all the claptrap from DAP - should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?
I think that the correspondence above indicates what a complete pig's breakfast it is conducting IFR flights in Class G airspace, and I do not accept that vectoring traffic, either under RIS or under a necessarily limited RAS on the intermediate and even final approach while still "calling" unknown traffic should be an acceptable method of operation.
This is the aspect that DAP does not seem to appreciate - they seem to actually want airproxes or worse before they will accept that some legal protection is necessary. Do they really think the flying through the holding area at FL35 or making initial contact at 1500 ft crossing final approach at 5 miles final is an acceptable practice?
At the very least, they could do a lot better that the stupid little "feather" on the charts to indicate one end of an instrument runway. It would be useful if there were an indication of each instrument runway final approach, out to about ten miles plus an indication of the airspace commonly used for holding, IAPs and radar vectoring. At least the military aerodromes attract a MATZ, not big enough to enclose all the airspace indicated above, but a start - civil aerodromes in class G have no "line on the map" outside the ATZ.
____________________________________________________
Couldn't agree more, 055.
It does behove ATC to play the game, but morally - never mind all the claptrap from DAP - should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?
I think that the correspondence above indicates what a complete pig's breakfast it is conducting IFR flights in Class G airspace, and I do not accept that vectoring traffic, either under RIS or under a necessarily limited RAS on the intermediate and even final approach while still "calling" unknown traffic should be an acceptable method of operation.
This is the aspect that DAP does not seem to appreciate - they seem to actually want airproxes or worse before they will accept that some legal protection is necessary. Do they really think the flying through the holding area at FL35 or making initial contact at 1500 ft crossing final approach at 5 miles final is an acceptable practice?
At the very least, they could do a lot better that the stupid little "feather" on the charts to indicate one end of an instrument runway. It would be useful if there were an indication of each instrument runway final approach, out to about ten miles plus an indication of the airspace commonly used for holding, IAPs and radar vectoring. At least the military aerodromes attract a MATZ, not big enough to enclose all the airspace indicated above, but a start - civil aerodromes in class G have no "line on the map" outside the ATZ.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a large commercial aircraft is operating in Class G airspace, it might only have protection once it reaches the ATZ.. There seems to be an argument for the airlines flying through Class G airspace to airports such as Doncaster to consider making a visual approach, and to make a visual circuit as well. (Yes, I appreciate that they would most likely be outside the ATZ).
Thomsonfly seem to like to make 10nm straight-in approaches, or at least procedural approaches, and never adapt to visual flying. They are probably not allowed to, because some bright spark has written into the OM that is it forbidden.
If this is so, it's a pity, because aircraft from Sandtoft, Retford etc will most likely keep clear of DSA up to 4 or 5 nm out, but might well cross an approach path at 6 or 7 nm. Maybe they shouldn't, but they might.
If the B737 joined downwind, and conducted a visual circuit (when wx permitted) it would be in a safer environment than if it carried out a long final approach.
What I am saying is that the airlines could help themselves if they were a bit more flexible.
Thomsonfly seem to like to make 10nm straight-in approaches, or at least procedural approaches, and never adapt to visual flying. They are probably not allowed to, because some bright spark has written into the OM that is it forbidden.
If this is so, it's a pity, because aircraft from Sandtoft, Retford etc will most likely keep clear of DSA up to 4 or 5 nm out, but might well cross an approach path at 6 or 7 nm. Maybe they shouldn't, but they might.
If the B737 joined downwind, and conducted a visual circuit (when wx permitted) it would be in a safer environment than if it carried out a long final approach.
What I am saying is that the airlines could help themselves if they were a bit more flexible.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat - regarding your Thomsonfly 10nm final point, from what I've seen that does appear to be the case. The aircraft begin their turns onto final approach to rwy 20 at exactly the same point (over my house) whatever the weather conditions, and I very rarely (almost never in fact) see any other Finningley inbound traffic doing likewise.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Whereever they will send a pay cheque
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there are several misconceptions about commercial jet operations. And a frank discussion from both jet and light aircraft operators may be of some benifit. So on my part then, just to clarify a few things.
The procedural arrival for 20 dictates that the base turn is commenced at 10.6 DME of the IFNL. So yes 10 miles out. This turn can be commenced earlier traffic and PROFILE permitting.Nearly always kept high when inbound to the FNY by Manchester radar. So, when passing overhead often need to fly the whole procedure for the track miles to "come down and slow down".
With regards to the visual, if being high is not an issue, and wx permitting, most guys would do a visual. The closer we are to the field the happier we all are, but, we are required to be established on the final approach course by 1500' for noise abatement reasons. This equates to 5 miles for a jet. This makes visual manouvering at night difficult as descent from the MSA cannot be commenced until within the circling area, again 5 miles.
Most days now though, with DSA radar operating, the controller vectors the aircraft, so if it is a 10 mile final its a 10 mile final.
PPrune radar, the "fish finder" resolves conflicts all over the world every day, despite pilots looking intently for traffic and even ATC scanning a scope. It is vital kit and maximising its use is essential. Of course a go around would be conducted whenever required, but if you think the fuel for this is not a major consideration, you really do not understand jet operations. Not the cost of the fuel, but just how much do you think will be in the tanks on the 2nd approach?
Wx aside, the JAR required fuel at your destination after 1 approach would be the trip fuel to your alternate and 30 mins holding at the alternate. Subtract a 1000kg's or there abouts and things get a little stressfull. That doesn't mean that when planning into somewhere like DSA, extra fuel, would not be carried, but, a go-around can have very a very serious impact on your fuel based options.
Traffic @ ......
BB
The procedural arrival for 20 dictates that the base turn is commenced at 10.6 DME of the IFNL. So yes 10 miles out. This turn can be commenced earlier traffic and PROFILE permitting.Nearly always kept high when inbound to the FNY by Manchester radar. So, when passing overhead often need to fly the whole procedure for the track miles to "come down and slow down".
With regards to the visual, if being high is not an issue, and wx permitting, most guys would do a visual. The closer we are to the field the happier we all are, but, we are required to be established on the final approach course by 1500' for noise abatement reasons. This equates to 5 miles for a jet. This makes visual manouvering at night difficult as descent from the MSA cannot be commenced until within the circling area, again 5 miles.
Most days now though, with DSA radar operating, the controller vectors the aircraft, so if it is a 10 mile final its a 10 mile final.
PPrune radar, the "fish finder" resolves conflicts all over the world every day, despite pilots looking intently for traffic and even ATC scanning a scope. It is vital kit and maximising its use is essential. Of course a go around would be conducted whenever required, but if you think the fuel for this is not a major consideration, you really do not understand jet operations. Not the cost of the fuel, but just how much do you think will be in the tanks on the 2nd approach?
Wx aside, the JAR required fuel at your destination after 1 approach would be the trip fuel to your alternate and 30 mins holding at the alternate. Subtract a 1000kg's or there abouts and things get a little stressfull. That doesn't mean that when planning into somewhere like DSA, extra fuel, would not be carried, but, a go-around can have very a very serious impact on your fuel based options.
Traffic @ ......
BB
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snowland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello fellow aviators!
It sometimes feels like we forget tja twe are all on the same side
While starting as a glider pilot , spent a few years instructing in GA and is now handeling jets.....and soon into Doncaster
What we all have to remember is that class C airspace doesn't meen that we can relax "puh! out of the copntrolled airspace"
It is more beneficial to everybody to have controlled airspace BUT it requires that atc really act as a helper than a stopper. Now, I'm the first to admitt that atc are probably the hardest working people in aviation it's still important to try and facilitate the odd VFR flight that is zick zacking towards it goal. If pilots would feel less intimidated by the thought of talking to atc they would be more likely to just call upp and say "I'm outside the airspace, about to pass through the extended centerline...any other a/c around". Just because you have the right to fly there doesn't mean that it's suitable right this second.
In the US they have a very relaxed way of viewing airspace and I don't really think I've ever been told "no you can't do that" it would more likely be "ok, can you keep east of the highway for another two miles than towards destination?"
The controlled airspace really means communication airspace! with a little bit of flexibility it can be done, not a problem.
Another thing that they have in the US around airfields are sectors covering the extended centerline which prevents a VFR aircraft to cross it in bad wx (requires higher cloud separation and visibility), If the wx is good, just sail through. And most airlines pilots won't mind to adjust their path if tey are in a gin clear day. But not while in IMC on a non precision apch.
Ok, more than I meant to say, be safe out there!
It sometimes feels like we forget tja twe are all on the same side
While starting as a glider pilot , spent a few years instructing in GA and is now handeling jets.....and soon into Doncaster
What we all have to remember is that class C airspace doesn't meen that we can relax "puh! out of the copntrolled airspace"
It is more beneficial to everybody to have controlled airspace BUT it requires that atc really act as a helper than a stopper. Now, I'm the first to admitt that atc are probably the hardest working people in aviation it's still important to try and facilitate the odd VFR flight that is zick zacking towards it goal. If pilots would feel less intimidated by the thought of talking to atc they would be more likely to just call upp and say "I'm outside the airspace, about to pass through the extended centerline...any other a/c around". Just because you have the right to fly there doesn't mean that it's suitable right this second.
In the US they have a very relaxed way of viewing airspace and I don't really think I've ever been told "no you can't do that" it would more likely be "ok, can you keep east of the highway for another two miles than towards destination?"
The controlled airspace really means communication airspace! with a little bit of flexibility it can be done, not a problem.
Another thing that they have in the US around airfields are sectors covering the extended centerline which prevents a VFR aircraft to cross it in bad wx (requires higher cloud separation and visibility), If the wx is good, just sail through. And most airlines pilots won't mind to adjust their path if tey are in a gin clear day. But not while in IMC on a non precision apch.
Ok, more than I meant to say, be safe out there!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?
The ICAO Recommendation is that all instrument approach procedures shall be protected by controlled airspace (Class A, C or D). Regrettably, the UK does not comply with this Recommendation.
The provision of radar advisory whether or not aircraft are equipped with (a) SSR, (b) Mode-C encoding and (c) TCAS is NOT a substitute for the known-traffic KNOWN-INTENTIONS controlled airspace environment it offers ATC and flight crew.
The CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy is staffed predominately by serving and ex. military personnel none of whom have a clue about public transport flights operating in Class G airspace.
The CAA's Director of Airspace Policy (an ex. RAF type) claims to be the guru of radar advisory but providing this service to a military fast-jet or helicopter is completely different to providing it to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 full of fare-paying civilian passengers.
Unfortunately, the CAA (supposedly the UK Safety Regulator...) just slopes its shoulders saying that it's "...up to the airline operator to satisfy itself as to the suitability and safety of a particular airport having regard to its planned operation." This is complete bull**** and the CAA knows it!
The trouble is that the advice given by the staff at the CAA to the Minister and the Department of Transport is that radar advisory provides the necessary safety assurance and that everything's 'hunky-dory'.
Try telling Eastern Airways, Flybe or the crews involved in various AIRPROXs at Doncaster/Finningley and Coventry...
Interestingly, this autumn, the Class D CTR at Brize Norton is being retained whilst the station's fixed-wing aircraft are detached to nearby Fairford during re-surfacing of the Brize runway, in the words of OC Brize "...for the protection of our aircraft into and out of RAF Fairford."
Quite.
Of course, controlled airspace doesn't have to exclude VFR ops by GA because Flexible Use of Airspace agreements can easily be put in place.
But it needs the CAA to pull its collective head out of the sand!!
Well said, ebenezer.
I really think that DAP needs to be publicly taken to task for their attitude over this. How on Earth can they justify the minimum number of IFR movements/pax criterion? Where do these figures come from. How do they measure safety to be able to smugly say that an acceptable level exists? Acceptable to whom, pray?
Interesting point - whenever I have conducted pilots around ATC and shown them the radar picture of Class G airspace, they usually sh*t themselves! What do they think we are doing much of the time?!!
I really think that DAP needs to be publicly taken to task for their attitude over this. How on Earth can they justify the minimum number of IFR movements/pax criterion? Where do these figures come from. How do they measure safety to be able to smugly say that an acceptable level exists? Acceptable to whom, pray?
Interesting point - whenever I have conducted pilots around ATC and shown them the radar picture of Class G airspace, they usually sh*t themselves! What do they think we are doing much of the time?!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so if we want controlled airspace to protect passenger flights how about all of us in GA applying for at least class D where we have aircraft operating on an AOC? Passenger flights, yes of course they are. But that would not be playing the game as far as the big boys are concerned. Imagine the problems you would then have getting into Doncaster with your tubes full of drunken holiday makers.
PPrune radar your summation is spot on, I am envious that I cannot put it so eloquently.
PPrune radar your summation is spot on, I am envious that I cannot put it so eloquently.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When, not if, Peel apply for the protection of class D airspace at Donny, they will have to undertake and pay for an extensive (about 18 month) consultation process alongside the CAA and DAP.
The consultation is not exclusive to aviation, but also includes environmental bodies, local councils and local people.
Whichever side of the fence you sit, now's the time to polish up and prepare constructive and balanced arguments, and having been involved in the process before, I know that you won't achieve anything without a good case presentation.
Procrasternation and inaccurate theory as has been occasionally posted here will achieve nothing.
The consultation is not exclusive to aviation, but also includes environmental bodies, local councils and local people.
Whichever side of the fence you sit, now's the time to polish up and prepare constructive and balanced arguments, and having been involved in the process before, I know that you won't achieve anything without a good case presentation.
Procrasternation and inaccurate theory as has been occasionally posted here will achieve nothing.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qcode you are right, but MATS part 1 says "The classification of the airspace within a flight information region determines the
flight rules which apply and the minimum services which are to be provided." Note use of the word minimum .
flight rules which apply and the minimum services which are to be provided." Note use of the word minimum .
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trh365
yes i agree, i was only pointing the point that somebody mentioned about all ifr a/c carrying out an instrument approach should be afforded protection. in the case of donny they are not, however i'm sure that if one of the radar controllers saw a primary return heading to cross final approach ahead of an inbound ifr a/c then the appropriate traffic would be given. Another point regarding the icao reccomendation, it is a reccomendation and does not have to be complied with by any member states. remember egsy, well it is still there, but many a time pilots flying passengers ifr on final approach would break cloud and see a ga a/c passing in front of them. to me its pretty scary, i prefer ifr inside cas (a,b,d) at any time.
yes i agree, i was only pointing the point that somebody mentioned about all ifr a/c carrying out an instrument approach should be afforded protection. in the case of donny they are not, however i'm sure that if one of the radar controllers saw a primary return heading to cross final approach ahead of an inbound ifr a/c then the appropriate traffic would be given. Another point regarding the icao reccomendation, it is a reccomendation and does not have to be complied with by any member states. remember egsy, well it is still there, but many a time pilots flying passengers ifr on final approach would break cloud and see a ga a/c passing in front of them. to me its pretty scary, i prefer ifr inside cas (a,b,d) at any time.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read this thread with interest. I was working on a Sun for a Families Day and through the ignorance of a couple of airpsace users the main attraction was a disappointment for the families. All formalities were put in place i.e. NOTAMS, local aerodromes phoned to reiterate the TRA - everything possible to inform one and all but still we had aviators call on frequency unaware of the avoid. At a guess about 75% of calls. I would say it surprised me but it didn't. It amazes me that people jump into their aeroplanes and fly around the countryside oblivious of avoids, danger areas, restricted areas, major airports etc. I understand that there is alot to read and take in prior to getting airborne but surely the major ones would stick, especially ones where fast jets are involved and airports with passenger aircraft. Yes, the Class of airspace implies as such "free for all" but I do think that some people take it too literally. Just the minority who are unaware of their environment spoil it for the majority and cause more trouble than required.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-CHOPS please do not assume that GA is the only culprit. Please refer to official statistics for airproxes, level busts, unauthorised entry into cas etc. and you will see that commercial air transport and military are guilty of such things. Your "free for all" is very much a misnomer and very few pilots would treat class g as such. Please also be aware that by a very large margin GA accounts for the majority of aircraft movements in the UK and therefore places such as Doncaster, should it aquire class D will do so at the expense of the MAJORITY of airspace users.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In respect of applying for airspace changes, see the thread: PPRuNe Forums » Ground Ops Forums » ATC Issues » IFR departures NOT on a SID.
.
niknak, also having been involved in two such 'airspace change' proposals, whilst I'd very much like to agree with your reference to "constructive and balanced arguments" I'm afraid that this whole issue has become such a political football that no matter how constructive and balanced the arguments in favour might be, the CAA (acting on the Direction of the DfT which itself is necessarily a political animal) now attempts the impossible task of trying to please all of the people all of the time whilst also trying to be mindful of the Government's not unreasonable desire to be re-elected.
The result is all too often an inadequate solution to an issue which is primarily one concerning
the safety of the travelling public.
Whilst some/many of the aircraft involved may indeed be mere "...tubes full of drunken holiday makers" as WorkingHard opines, these people have nonetheless paid the airline or tour operator for a ticket and they are entitled to the same level of safety and protection whether they're flying from Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Doncaster, East Midlands, Exeter, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle, Luton, Norwich, Stansted, Teesside (DTV), etc.
The whole ethos in the UK in regard to this issue is hoplessly out-of-date, utterly confused and patently not delivering an acceptable target level of safety.
The 'protection' of an ATZ - being unchanged in its concept for over 50 years - is non-existant for large public-transport aircraft. The military recognised this shortcoming years ago when the standard MATZ was introduced as applying to all military flights.
The growth of airline operations from many previously minimally-used regional airports in Class G airspace has changed the operational landscape and the speed at which such operations can quite literally mushroom from virtually nothing has left the CAA and its hoplessly inadequate civil-service processes far behind.
The notion that all airspace users have equal rights of access is simply untenable in 21st Century Britain - we do not for example, permit learner drivers or motorcycles below a specified engine capacity to operate on our motorways, neither would we/do we allow the owners and operators of privately-owned trains to run on the national rail network without regulation, integration and control; and the idea that UK airspace can be operated in a similar fashion to for example, yachting and boating in The Solent, whilst ensuring that the travelling public is afforded a safe passage, is just not realistic.
The Government champions the development of regional air services yet fails lamentably to facilitate the necessary safety-orientated infrastructure. What the UK urgently needs is a completely new approach by the Government through the DfT that recognises the need to put the safety of the travelling public (who after all, have the vote...) at the top of the agenda whilst also ensuring that where it's reasonable and practical, others are not unduly restricted. The Flexible Use of Airspace concept embraces this latter issue and offers one way ahead.
Whilst one should not really be emotive or sensationalist about this if - God forbid - we were ever faced in the UK with a midair along the lines of Cerritos* (which admittedly, happened inside CAS albeit Class 'B' but a similar concept to the provision of RAS and RIS in UK Class 'G') we would find that the necessary airspace and ATC measures would be introduced virtually overnight (assuming that is, the Government left anyone responsible, still employed in the CAA and so able to do it).
---------
(*At approximately 11:40 am PDT on August 31, 1986, a Piper Archer departed Torrance, California, for a VFR flight to Big Bear, California. A flight plan filed, but not activated, with the Hawthorne Flight Service Station showed the proposed route as direct Long Beach to Paradise VOR and then direct to Big Bear at a cruising altitude of 9,500 feet. Radar showed that the Piper turned east toward Paradise after takeoff with the Mode-A transponder [i.e. non altitude reporting] set to the VFR code of # 1200. The pilot did not request ATC assistance or clearance into the TMA. [In 1986, what is now Class B airspace was designated as a TMA.]
Aeromexico 498, a DC9 with 58 passengers and a crew of six, was inbound from Tijuana to Los Angeles (LAX) on an IFR flight plan. Flight 498 reported out of 10,000 feet at 11:46 a.m. and was instructed to contact LAX Approach Control. About one minute later, the flight reported level at 7,000 feet, and at 11:50 approach control asked for a speed reduction to 210 knots, which the crew acknowledged.
At 11:50:46, the controller advised Flight 498 of "Traffic, 10 o'clock, one mile, northbound, altitude unknown." Aeromexico 498 acknowledged the call but did not report the traffic in sight.
However, this was not the Archer target.
At 11:51:04, the flight was cleared down to 6,000 feet.
ATC then noticed that the radar was no longer tracking Flight 498 and after several unsuccessful attempts at radio contact, notified the arrival coordinator that radar and radio contact was lost. At 11:52:09, Flight 498 and the Piper Archer collided over Cerritos at about 6,650 feet. The Archer had inadvertently penetrated the 6,000-foot floor of the TMA without a clearance. The sky was clear with reported visibility of 14 miles. There were no survivors on either aircraft, and 15 people were killed on the ground. Five houses were destroyed and seven others damaged by wreckage or post-impact fire").
Whichever side of the fence you sit, now's the time to polish up and prepare constructive and balanced arguments, and having been involved in the process before, I know that you won't achieve anything without a good case presentation.
niknak, also having been involved in two such 'airspace change' proposals, whilst I'd very much like to agree with your reference to "constructive and balanced arguments" I'm afraid that this whole issue has become such a political football that no matter how constructive and balanced the arguments in favour might be, the CAA (acting on the Direction of the DfT which itself is necessarily a political animal) now attempts the impossible task of trying to please all of the people all of the time whilst also trying to be mindful of the Government's not unreasonable desire to be re-elected.
The result is all too often an inadequate solution to an issue which is primarily one concerning
the safety of the travelling public.
Whilst some/many of the aircraft involved may indeed be mere "...tubes full of drunken holiday makers" as WorkingHard opines, these people have nonetheless paid the airline or tour operator for a ticket and they are entitled to the same level of safety and protection whether they're flying from Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Doncaster, East Midlands, Exeter, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle, Luton, Norwich, Stansted, Teesside (DTV), etc.
The whole ethos in the UK in regard to this issue is hoplessly out-of-date, utterly confused and patently not delivering an acceptable target level of safety.
The 'protection' of an ATZ - being unchanged in its concept for over 50 years - is non-existant for large public-transport aircraft. The military recognised this shortcoming years ago when the standard MATZ was introduced as applying to all military flights.
The growth of airline operations from many previously minimally-used regional airports in Class G airspace has changed the operational landscape and the speed at which such operations can quite literally mushroom from virtually nothing has left the CAA and its hoplessly inadequate civil-service processes far behind.
The notion that all airspace users have equal rights of access is simply untenable in 21st Century Britain - we do not for example, permit learner drivers or motorcycles below a specified engine capacity to operate on our motorways, neither would we/do we allow the owners and operators of privately-owned trains to run on the national rail network without regulation, integration and control; and the idea that UK airspace can be operated in a similar fashion to for example, yachting and boating in The Solent, whilst ensuring that the travelling public is afforded a safe passage, is just not realistic.
The Government champions the development of regional air services yet fails lamentably to facilitate the necessary safety-orientated infrastructure. What the UK urgently needs is a completely new approach by the Government through the DfT that recognises the need to put the safety of the travelling public (who after all, have the vote...) at the top of the agenda whilst also ensuring that where it's reasonable and practical, others are not unduly restricted. The Flexible Use of Airspace concept embraces this latter issue and offers one way ahead.
Whilst one should not really be emotive or sensationalist about this if - God forbid - we were ever faced in the UK with a midair along the lines of Cerritos* (which admittedly, happened inside CAS albeit Class 'B' but a similar concept to the provision of RAS and RIS in UK Class 'G') we would find that the necessary airspace and ATC measures would be introduced virtually overnight (assuming that is, the Government left anyone responsible, still employed in the CAA and so able to do it).
---------
(*At approximately 11:40 am PDT on August 31, 1986, a Piper Archer departed Torrance, California, for a VFR flight to Big Bear, California. A flight plan filed, but not activated, with the Hawthorne Flight Service Station showed the proposed route as direct Long Beach to Paradise VOR and then direct to Big Bear at a cruising altitude of 9,500 feet. Radar showed that the Piper turned east toward Paradise after takeoff with the Mode-A transponder [i.e. non altitude reporting] set to the VFR code of # 1200. The pilot did not request ATC assistance or clearance into the TMA. [In 1986, what is now Class B airspace was designated as a TMA.]
Aeromexico 498, a DC9 with 58 passengers and a crew of six, was inbound from Tijuana to Los Angeles (LAX) on an IFR flight plan. Flight 498 reported out of 10,000 feet at 11:46 a.m. and was instructed to contact LAX Approach Control. About one minute later, the flight reported level at 7,000 feet, and at 11:50 approach control asked for a speed reduction to 210 knots, which the crew acknowledged.
At 11:50:46, the controller advised Flight 498 of "Traffic, 10 o'clock, one mile, northbound, altitude unknown." Aeromexico 498 acknowledged the call but did not report the traffic in sight.
However, this was not the Archer target.
At 11:51:04, the flight was cleared down to 6,000 feet.
ATC then noticed that the radar was no longer tracking Flight 498 and after several unsuccessful attempts at radio contact, notified the arrival coordinator that radar and radio contact was lost. At 11:52:09, Flight 498 and the Piper Archer collided over Cerritos at about 6,650 feet. The Archer had inadvertently penetrated the 6,000-foot floor of the TMA without a clearance. The sky was clear with reported visibility of 14 miles. There were no survivors on either aircraft, and 15 people were killed on the ground. Five houses were destroyed and seven others damaged by wreckage or post-impact fire").
Last edited by CAP670; 4th Sep 2005 at 12:26.
Imposition of class D is all well and good but, the problem then becomes access. Several airfields in the UK operate with quite tight margins and employ limited staff. That lone controller, up to his eyeballs with inbounds can (and often do) refuse transits because they are too busy.
KEEP CLEAR OF CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....GET ORF MOI LAAANND!
KEEP CLEAR OF CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....GET ORF MOI LAAANND!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATzs
Going back a few posts, and just in case anyone is unaware, a MATZ provides protection only for military / military traffic.
Legally, civvie traffic only has to observe the ATZ, which is the much smaller 2000' / 2 or 2.5 mile cylinder.
It may not be sensible to drive your puddle jumper across a MATZ at 4 miles out, but its not of itself illegal.
Sven
Legally, civvie traffic only has to observe the ATZ, which is the much smaller 2000' / 2 or 2.5 mile cylinder.
It may not be sensible to drive your puddle jumper across a MATZ at 4 miles out, but its not of itself illegal.
Sven
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Workinghard :-
You say "Please also be aware that by a very large margin GA accounts for the majority of aircraft movements in the UK"..... That may be so , but it would need an awful lot of GA movements to equate to the number of people on a B737 wanting CAS protection. As CAP670 rightly says, it is "an issue which is primarily one concerning the safety of the travelling public. "
The military & AOPA are currently on a winner because no MD can afford to shout about lack of protection around his Airport - but I bet if a crusading Sun reporter told Joe Public what goes on , there would be a lot more CAS very quickly !!
You also say "and therefore places such as Doncaster, should it aquire class D will do so at the expense of the MAJORITY of airspace users."
Why do you say "at the expense of" ? Maybe in some areas , GA is delayed or kept out of CAS for traffic reasons, but if it's that busy, can you be confident you can fly safely through it anyway if CAS didn't exist ?
Supposing Stornoway wanted Class D airspace to protect it's instrument approaches - who would be the majority affected by that ? The blanket objection to CAS by certain organisations does them no credit !!
Rant over :-)
You say "Please also be aware that by a very large margin GA accounts for the majority of aircraft movements in the UK"..... That may be so , but it would need an awful lot of GA movements to equate to the number of people on a B737 wanting CAS protection. As CAP670 rightly says, it is "an issue which is primarily one concerning the safety of the travelling public. "
The military & AOPA are currently on a winner because no MD can afford to shout about lack of protection around his Airport - but I bet if a crusading Sun reporter told Joe Public what goes on , there would be a lot more CAS very quickly !!
You also say "and therefore places such as Doncaster, should it aquire class D will do so at the expense of the MAJORITY of airspace users."
Why do you say "at the expense of" ? Maybe in some areas , GA is delayed or kept out of CAS for traffic reasons, but if it's that busy, can you be confident you can fly safely through it anyway if CAS didn't exist ?
Supposing Stornoway wanted Class D airspace to protect it's instrument approaches - who would be the majority affected by that ? The blanket objection to CAS by certain organisations does them no credit !!
Rant over :-)