UK airspaces

[jangler909]

Just saw an advert of ATCO vacancy at Southend:
"The airport is situated in Class G airspace beneath the London TMA and handles a varied mixture of aircraft types from microlights to B757s. In 2005, Southend handled 53,000 airport movements and 14,000 overflights."
"...to work as a member of a small, flexible, enthusiastic team ensuring safety in a busy ATC environment."
"...as the airport is open H24."
Why is such airport situated in class G?? Sounds dangerous to me! How can the system work when anyone could fly over the airfield without a word in the radio?! In my country I'm used to the fact that all controlled airfields have their own control zones (class C or D). Though, on the other hand, we have lots of space here . Still don't understand...

[foghorn]

Originally Posted by jangler909

Why is such airport situated in class G?? Sounds dangerous to me! How can the system work when anyone could fly over the airfield without a word in the radio?! In my country I'm used to the fact that all controlled airfields have their own control zones (class C or D). Though, on the other hand, we have lots of space here . Still don't understand...

In the UK, any airport can be a controlled airfield as long as it meets the CAA's various standards. However to have a control zone you must have a minimum number of IFR movements (and jump through a load of other hoops). Southend has less than the required number of movements so doesn't have one. Having said that it can't be far from the trigger level, and it did have a zone many years ago that was done away with.

The system actually works pretty well considering - it means that in our small, densely-populated, and in aviation terms densely-trafficked country we don't have massive areas of controlled airspace at surface level protecting airports that only have a few IFR movements.

Note that also in the UK, ATSUs are allowed to provide a very high level of air traffic service outside controlled airspace, when compared with other countries, which helps at Class G controlled airports.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Foghorn
I have had a really bad day but I cant believe this......

The system actually works pretty well considering - it means that in our small, densely-populated, and in aviation terms densely-trafficked country we don't have massive areas of controlled airspace at surface level protecting airports that only have a few IFR movements.

ATM movements ceased to be a reason to justify CAS in about 1995, and IMHO if you had had to work at a certain Midlands airport today OCAS you would have had as many beers as I have to relieve the pent up anger and frustration.....
OWZ

[foghorn]

Originally Posted by OCEAN WUN ZERO

ATM movements ceased to be a reason to justify CAS in about 1995, and IMHO if you had had to work at a certain Midlands airport today OCAS you would have had as many beers as I have to relieve the pent up anger and frustration.....
OWZ

OK, there are some airfields that really should have CTRs that currently don't I'll grant you, but that's a handful. With the amount of beer being drunk I guess you work at one of them
However if every airfield with a control tower, or even just every airfield with a published IAP had a CTR it would mean a proliferation of controlled airspace in places that really don't need it. Just how many non-training IFR movements does, say, Shoreham get? Does Booker really warrant a CTR?

Fair enough about the ATM movements, I wasn't aware that it had changed. What is needed these days then? What did PK do to get its CTR back?

[rab-k]

Originally Posted by foghorn

What did PK do to get its CTR back?

I suspect, have a certain CEO of a certain airline who operates several flights per day from there, jump up and down and shout a great deal. (As he is known to do on occassion ).

[Regular Cappuccino]

Quite a few years ago now, a few of us had occasion to visit DAP in the old CAA House in Holborn. Whoever it was that escorted us told us about the misconception that x number of ATMs were the magic figure for qualifying for CAS. According to this person (& I can't remember who it was) when the department was set up, they were all chatting in a pub about what the criteria might possibly be for getting CAS and as part of the conversation, someone suggested a nominal number of ATMs which was (quote) "scribbled on the back of a fag packet"(unquote). It was apparently never actually adopted though. He didn't make it clear to us exactly what criteria were adopted, but I believe the inference was that each application was considered on its merits, taking into account the requirements of all airspace users in the area, & not just on the number of ATMs.
Those of our colleagues operating in very trying circumstances outside CAS have my sympathies, - from my comfortable position within the (relative) security of Class D!
RC

[PPRuNe Radar]

I suspect, have a certain CEO of a certain airline who operates several flights per day from there, jump up and down and shout a great deal. (As he is known to do on occassion

Alas, you'd be wrong. Those who have gone through the Airspace Case process know the hoops which need to be jumped through. Airline operators leave it to ATS (and for about 1% of the work, airport authorities) to do the donkey work.

[2 sheds]

Originally Posted by Regular Cappuccino

According to this person (& I can't remember who it was) when the department was set up, they were all chatting in a pub about what the criteria might possibly be for getting CAS and as part of the conversation, someone suggested a nominal number of ATMs which was (quote) "scribbled on the back of a fag packet"(unquote). It was apparently never actually adopted though. RC

Oh yes it was!! Don't know how long ago you are referring to, but this was precisely the criterion that was used as the excuse for Southend (and, I believe, Prestwick) losing its CTR. Given that there is now the available "menu" of classes of CAS, it is an absolute disgrace that any aerodrome with IAPs still has to operate in Class G.

[Regular Cappuccino]

Late 1980's I think. And that's what we understood them to say - ATMs were part of the equation, but by no means the only criterion. RC

[jangler909]

I'd like to point here another question; why shouldn't every controlled airfield have an own CTR?

[Pierre Argh]

Jngler 909

Within the UK most (even many minor) airfields have an Air Traffic Zone. Whilst this doesn't have the status of regulated airspace (it assumes the status of the airspace within which it is located). This includes many regional airports and virtually all military airfields (who also have slightly larger MATZs but this is only recognised by Mil pilots)

ATZs are established to protect a/c during landing circuiting and take-off, and any pilot who wishes to transit the ATZ is required to contact the controlling authority on RT... this may be anything from an AGS to a full-blown IFR ATC setup.

I agree the gold-plated option would be to have CAS, but there are many lobbies competing to preserve their rights/freedoms. Generally the system is IMHO a good compromise (although there are always borderline cases where a little more protection would be nice!)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Jangler 909

You aren't related to a former Grand Master of GATCO Southern Lodge, are you? The ideas sound similar.

DISCLAIMER

The adverts aren't mine.

[chevvron]

Trouble is there's no way a 2.5 nm radius class G ATZ goes anywhere near protecting IFR arrivals at places like Exeter, Farnborough, Humberside, Biggin Hill etc (doesn't even protect aircraft in the visual circuit) but do they need regulated airspace? A 'known traffic' block of airspace yes, but not necessarily regulated. Why not have a larger ATZ but still class G say 5nm radius?
Anyone from those airfields with IAPs in class G agree with me PM; maybe we could get together and put a 'case' to DAP for a larger ATZ.

[Pierre Argh]

Chevron (at the risk of moving off thread on this topic) I agree a 5nms radius ATZ option would be a good start, perhaps for those airfields with established/approved IFR procedures(?)... and, as a thought, if you added a stub to 10mns it would bring them in-line with Military ATZs.

However I suspect pinching "free airspace" you might get opposition from the GA fraternity. Watch the topic I'll add in the "Private Aviation" Forum to see what the reaction is like?

[London Mil]

I think you may find that GA wouldn't have an argument against CAS being established to provide a 'known environment'. Their beef would be the establishment of CAS that wouldn't/couldn't be efficiently managed thus hindering perfectly valid access (The scenario I'm considering here is a Class D CTR which is managed by a single controller who, due to the high level of IFR traffic, doesn't have the capacity to issue VFR clearances that in all other respects would be perfectly safe).

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Whos going to pay for the ATCO

Lon Mil
By inference your point, although valid would require the ANSP to provide a "zone" controller, would GA pay a navigation service charge to support this.

The MATS idea is a good one. Would we need to go through the same hoops, what about the environmental lobby that use the CAS application to oppose the airport expansion.


OWZ

[Pierre Argh]

would GA pay a navigation service charge

Ahh a can of worms, I can already hear contributors from all camps crying what about tax on fuel, the inadequate funding of LARS etc?

I wonder whether the Controller at an airport with only an ATZ around it who's trying to dodge the unknowns, is working any harder than the sole controller managing a shed-load of IFR recoveries in a Class D Zone... difference is I guess the unknowns can continue on their way unhindered around the former... but are perhaps unaware of the mayhem they might have left in their wake?

Environmental Lobby... I presume you mean they object to the establishment of CAS as a means of stopping expansion? We aren't talking about CAS here (or more properly "regulated" airspace, nor am I suggesting the rules for it's establishment need change, just that there might be way to offer a tadge more protection to smaller airports who do not have the protection by having various sizes of ATZ?

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

Originally Posted by Pierre Argh

Environmental Lobby... I presume you mean they object to the establishment of CAS as a means of stopping expansion? We aren't talking about CAS here (or more properly "regulated" airspace, nor am I suggesting the rules for it's establishment need change, just that there might be way to offer a tadge more protection to smaller airports who do not have the protection by having various sizes of ATZ?

I can assure you that even changing an ATZ from 2 to 2.5 nm ( recently done it ) creates just about as much hassel as a full blown ACP.


OWZ

[London Mil]

OWZ, maybe so. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that the current "status quo" is untenable.

[mdcsplatter]

Just to clarify for all, PIK got its CAS back after a long fought battle which took very nearly five years. The arguments involved various parties including the ppl community who were convinced it was a bad thing, and the Airport on behalf of its fare paying public who thought it was a good thing. I don't remember MOL being involved in the process. He certainly wasn't in the office when I put the proposals forward to DAP and quite honestly I don't think he gave a flying fig as it made no difference to his bottom line. CAS is in the UK justified by tests of usage which have to be demonstrated. Perhaps EGMC isn't in that league just yet.