Olympic airspace validation
ban biz jets?
Why not simply ban the exec jets, except for heads of state, then the airlines can have a few more business and first class passengers?
Many people have already commented that the exec jet is the most probable terrorist weapon and the hardest to stop. Seems odd that they are allowed so close to the Olympic venue.
How long does it take for an exec jet to go from the approach at Biggin hill to the heart of the Olympic village and how would anyone stop it?
I am surprised that exec jets are allowed withing 60 miles of the Olympic venue.
bb
Many people have already commented that the exec jet is the most probable terrorist weapon and the hardest to stop. Seems odd that they are allowed so close to the Olympic venue.
How long does it take for an exec jet to go from the approach at Biggin hill to the heart of the Olympic village and how would anyone stop it?
I am surprised that exec jets are allowed withing 60 miles of the Olympic venue.
bb
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the LTMA already suffers an inordinate amount of infringers (though it has improved drastically over the past 2 years). These infrngers tend to be from local airfields that you would expect to know better... throw into the mix people flying around who don't have a clue about the airpace and it could be fun.
But if the local airfields could have (and find means of funding) a tower and approach control, arriving and departing aircraft would be sent on appropriate routes under control until safely clear of the area.
Out of interest, has anyone considered Class B or C airspace?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR is not 'locked out' there are plenty areas you can fly VFR. There are plenty areas where you can fly where a simple call to the appropriate approach unit would mean that instead of being an infringer, you would be known traffic.
I haven't studied every single incident, but I would hazard a guess that almost every infringement is down to inattention.
Either inattention to detail in the planning phase, or inattention to the plan when airborne.
Even more to the point, a lack of adequate in-depth navigation training during a 40 hour PPL rating.
The one time I would maybe, just maybe, relent on the above is if an aircraft suffers an amergeny then strays. Even then I would be disappointed that the pilot did not follow the 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' principle.
If you are flying VFR with a zone to your right, then even in an emergency you should know you don't turn right and cause an infringement.
Navigation is not difficult however it is lacking, either through ignorance or laziness, in some pilots. These pilots are the ones that cause iinfringements.
Control Zones don't change on a daily basis, the information is readily available. The 6Ps taught in military flying are as pertinent to the hobby flier.
Prior Preparation Prevents Pi$$ Poor Performance.
Sorry if that comes across quite hard but it is a bit of a bug bear of mine.
The airspace might be tight, but it is not locked out and it is certainly not an excuse for poor airmanship.
I haven't studied every single incident, but I would hazard a guess that almost every infringement is down to inattention.
Either inattention to detail in the planning phase, or inattention to the plan when airborne.
Even more to the point, a lack of adequate in-depth navigation training during a 40 hour PPL rating.
The one time I would maybe, just maybe, relent on the above is if an aircraft suffers an amergeny then strays. Even then I would be disappointed that the pilot did not follow the 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' principle.
If you are flying VFR with a zone to your right, then even in an emergency you should know you don't turn right and cause an infringement.
Navigation is not difficult however it is lacking, either through ignorance or laziness, in some pilots. These pilots are the ones that cause iinfringements.
Control Zones don't change on a daily basis, the information is readily available. The 6Ps taught in military flying are as pertinent to the hobby flier.
Prior Preparation Prevents Pi$$ Poor Performance.
Sorry if that comes across quite hard but it is a bit of a bug bear of mine.
The airspace might be tight, but it is not locked out and it is certainly not an excuse for poor airmanship.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC we all got extra for Dec31st 1999 because of the fear of the dreaded 'Millenium Bug'.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then even in an emergency
It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
So.... as long as you're prepared to comply with
If any departure from the Rules of the Air is made for the purpose of avoiding
immediate danger, the commander of the aircraft must cause written detailed
information about the departure, and of the circumstances giving rise to it, to be given
within 10 days of the departure to the competent authority of the country in whose
territory the departure was made or if the departure was made over the high seas, to
the CAA.
immediate danger, the commander of the aircraft must cause written detailed
information about the departure, and of the circumstances giving rise to it, to be given
within 10 days of the departure to the competent authority of the country in whose
territory the departure was made or if the departure was made over the high seas, to
the CAA.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, my point of view is you shouldn't be flying so close to it in the first place !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixture,
The point was trying to make, maybe not so well, is that you should always be aware of your position.
An emergency is not an excuse to let your airmanship fall to pieces, in fact the very opposite should happen.
I had just re-read my post before reading your reply and I did think that it might need some qualification. If a pilot is suffering an emergency, then I would not expect the book to be thrown at them if they infringe... far from it, extenuating circumstances and all that.
However as any pilot who has done proper emergency training (i.e. not PPL 'experience of emergencies') will know that one of the things drummed into you is that you do not let the emergency take over to the extent that airmanship suffers.
Aviate, Navigate, Comunicate.
There aint that many emergencies that stop you from being able to do the above.
The point was trying to make, maybe not so well, is that you should always be aware of your position.
An emergency is not an excuse to let your airmanship fall to pieces, in fact the very opposite should happen.
I had just re-read my post before reading your reply and I did think that it might need some qualification. If a pilot is suffering an emergency, then I would not expect the book to be thrown at them if they infringe... far from it, extenuating circumstances and all that.
However as any pilot who has done proper emergency training (i.e. not PPL 'experience of emergencies') will know that one of the things drummed into you is that you do not let the emergency take over to the extent that airmanship suffers.
Aviate, Navigate, Comunicate.
There aint that many emergencies that stop you from being able to do the above.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing,
Ok, in the light of your clarification I can see where you are coming from now.
I was getting myself ready to throw the rather extreme infringement scenario of a hijacking at you, but I see this is now not needed.
Ok, in the light of your clarification I can see where you are coming from now.
I was getting myself ready to throw the rather extreme infringement scenario of a hijacking at you, but I see this is now not needed.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise that this is taking the thread off topic, but I agree with anotherthing.
I have not got a PPL; I did a few hours before joining NATS and then had the 15 hours during my training.
I have been lucky enough to go flying with a few non-ATCO friends, some of whom had hundreds of PPL hours, and one who was about to go to a well known flight training establishment to do the ATPL course.
I have often been surprised (and not in a good way) by the level of navigation competence I have encountered while being in the right hand seat of C152s and PA28s (all non-GPS equipped). On paper, in the flight planning stage, everything is fine, but once in the air there appears to be a lack of experience in relating the chart to what is out of the window, and a reluctance to use the navaids as a back up (they give that job to me!). A number of infringements, especially of the Stansted zone, have been avoided due to my leading questions. I'm not blowing my own trumpet, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I do worry about the state of airmanship and navigation out there.
I have not got a PPL; I did a few hours before joining NATS and then had the 15 hours during my training.
I have been lucky enough to go flying with a few non-ATCO friends, some of whom had hundreds of PPL hours, and one who was about to go to a well known flight training establishment to do the ATPL course.
I have often been surprised (and not in a good way) by the level of navigation competence I have encountered while being in the right hand seat of C152s and PA28s (all non-GPS equipped). On paper, in the flight planning stage, everything is fine, but once in the air there appears to be a lack of experience in relating the chart to what is out of the window, and a reluctance to use the navaids as a back up (they give that job to me!). A number of infringements, especially of the Stansted zone, have been avoided due to my leading questions. I'm not blowing my own trumpet, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I do worry about the state of airmanship and navigation out there.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
It is unfortunate... when I did my 15 hours worth of flying 'training' with NATS, I ended up spending a good part of the time teaching my instructor (who could fly the aircraft very well), the finer points of VFR navigation planning and execution.
Thought I'd almost got there until on a trip to Prestwick, he couldn't find the airfield despite the humungus big line feature that leads you all the way in being in front of him for several miles without him noticing... and he wasn't even flying, he was purely navving while I sat behind and another student flew
Back to the thread... the olympics will be fine... As for the post a few above talking about the departures being possibly the worst... I'm sure even the minor aerodromes will be regulated by some pretty stiff slots
It is unfortunate... when I did my 15 hours worth of flying 'training' with NATS, I ended up spending a good part of the time teaching my instructor (who could fly the aircraft very well), the finer points of VFR navigation planning and execution.
Thought I'd almost got there until on a trip to Prestwick, he couldn't find the airfield despite the humungus big line feature that leads you all the way in being in front of him for several miles without him noticing... and he wasn't even flying, he was purely navving while I sat behind and another student flew
Back to the thread... the olympics will be fine... As for the post a few above talking about the departures being possibly the worst... I'm sure even the minor aerodromes will be regulated by some pretty stiff slots
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't saying that the departures would be the worst, obviously we can keep them on the ground and regulate more easily. However, if we have to create new routings and procedures for arrivals, then surely we will need to adapt to cope with the departures? If we don't then there will be extensive departure delays, therefore valuable tarmac occupied for much longer than expected, therefore a valuable parking space not available for all the inbounds we are trying to cram through the system. London City works wonders with the limited amount of space it has, I am wrong in thinking more of the London airports will have similar problems during the Olympic period? Can't see the point of having 6 new ways to get them in but no new ways to get them back out.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,
Misinterpreted your post. Yes, you would think that new routes out would be a good idea... I suppose the argument is that for the inbounds the new holds will take up any over delivery, whereas with properly applied flow(!), the outbounds will ...be easier to regulate.
Harder to ensure inbounds arrive at the time they are supposed to because of all the variables in a long inbound flight.
Misinterpreted your post. Yes, you would think that new routes out would be a good idea... I suppose the argument is that for the inbounds the new holds will take up any over delivery, whereas with properly applied flow(!), the outbounds will ...be easier to regulate.
Harder to ensure inbounds arrive at the time they are supposed to because of all the variables in a long inbound flight.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing, perhaps you could also consider the provision of adequate numbers of controllers in controlled airspace so that VFR traffic can get equal access for that chunk of sky as per the original intentions. One frequently hears "due to controller workload" or "ROCAS" without the correct response of when access would be granted. Of course in GA we do have the option of filing IFR and all that goes with that but GA does not need that, what it does need, I believe, is proper and adequate support from those who seek to exclude (for safety reasons course).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much would you be willing to pay for the service? At the moment light aircraft pay nothing, yet cause the most grief when INCAS because they have poor performance i.e. they are in the way for much longer, take longer to vacate levels etc.
Workload rises way out of proportion when you add a puddle jumper to the equation.
Maybe set rates at how complex an aircraft makes things by being in the airspace.... but that would see a pilot of a C152 paying much more than a 777!!
Workload rises way out of proportion when you add a puddle jumper to the equation.
Maybe set rates at how complex an aircraft makes things by being in the airspace.... but that would see a pilot of a C152 paying much more than a 777!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although this is a drift thread.
Not withstanding anotherthings post. When you listen to the standard of R/T and and in some cases basic Airmanship in some quarters of GA, it is perhaps understandable why some are told to remain Outside CAS.
Not withstanding anotherthings post. When you listen to the standard of R/T and and in some cases basic Airmanship in some quarters of GA, it is perhaps understandable why some are told to remain Outside CAS.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does not seem to be such a problem in many other countries as it seems to be here. All I was asking was for those who wish to have the right to exclude others perhaps ought to consider going by the rule book - just as GA should. As for paying for the service I would submit that those who want the CAS should make the service available without charge because it is ACCESS to that airspace that is being requested and you pay nothing for that chunk of airspace. If you paid by the volume you wish to have then there may be a case for charging for entry but as you dont it seems to be a bit of a spurrious argument. There is a lot of castigation of GA and in some cases rightly so but not all GA is made up of weekend "bumblers". You know as do I that anything that is not classed as military or CAT is GA so a very wide range is covered.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard.... Well said, Sir.
According to my book, Class A prohibits VFR. (with the exception of the CTR, etc. - ok)
I agree some pilots could do with better navigation and radio training. The reluctance by some to use radio nav and/or GPS still puzzles me.
However as your airspace is so complex, I think it's rather unfair that VFR is left on its own to navigate themselves around the pile of Class A at 10,000ft:
*Source: SkydemonLight showing airspace of the London area, a product endorsed by NATS. Garmin GPS units would also show similar airspace depictions.
Notes: Each red line depicts a boundary of Class A airspace, where mostly VFR is locked out. Pink line shows route from Shoreham to Cambridge. Pink shaded circles show NOTAMed areas. And I chose 10,000ft because it's more fuel efficient.
I thought that's what lower airways are for? Light and slow aircraft generally cruise at lower altitudes. You won't find B737's cruising at 4000ft.
VFR is not 'locked out' there are plenty areas you can fly VFR
I agree some pilots could do with better navigation and radio training. The reluctance by some to use radio nav and/or GPS still puzzles me.
However as your airspace is so complex, I think it's rather unfair that VFR is left on its own to navigate themselves around the pile of Class A at 10,000ft:
*Source: SkydemonLight showing airspace of the London area, a product endorsed by NATS. Garmin GPS units would also show similar airspace depictions.
Notes: Each red line depicts a boundary of Class A airspace, where mostly VFR is locked out. Pink line shows route from Shoreham to Cambridge. Pink shaded circles show NOTAMed areas. And I chose 10,000ft because it's more fuel efficient.
... yet cause the most grief when INCAS because they have poor performance i.e. they are in the way for much longer, take longer to vacate levels etc.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you are correct you won't (usually), find 737's cruising at 4000. However as your own diagram illustrates, there are lots of different parts of CAS all with different levels.
Although 737's don't usually stooge around at 4000, they do have to climb through that level to get to the cruise.
Many of the light aircraft want to cruise at FL80, 90, or 100. This puts them in direct conflict with passenger aircraft wishing to climb/descend through these levels.
Using your diagram again, you can see how many small airfields there are in the area... the performance characteristics of a lot of aircraft operating from these airfields means that they will get in the way as they slowly plod their way up to FL80 or 90, whilst doing 120Kts ground speed
Your route from Shoreham to Cambridge would not get to fly that way at any level in the TMA, because of the various holds for major airports, or various zones, being used by airline operators that pay for the service
If you really are talking about aircraft being allowed to fly VFR at 4000, then you really need to understand how the airspace is designed and why. The base is designed on climb characteristics of passenger aircraft leaving major licensed airports. It is there to afford some safety in the climb/descent i.e. the airspace base raised the further from an airport you get. That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.
You really need to understand the reasons behind airspace design and not just throw your toys out the cot because you can't fly wherever you want. It is an intense area of aircraft operation. The airspace is designed to provide protection. Whilst not maybe the most efficient use, it is also designed to allow as much Class G as possible, e.g. underneath.
Unless you are willing to dig deep and pay quite hefty charges to facilitate extra controllers and support staff and equipment, I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc, entry will be subject to traffic, you would not get charged if you couldn't enter.
In the ideal world, everyone would be able to do what they want when they wanted, but it is not the ideal world. The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users, and it is in the interests of UK PLC to protect trade and get money into the country via passenger transport etc.
Although 737's don't usually stooge around at 4000, they do have to climb through that level to get to the cruise.
Many of the light aircraft want to cruise at FL80, 90, or 100. This puts them in direct conflict with passenger aircraft wishing to climb/descend through these levels.
Using your diagram again, you can see how many small airfields there are in the area... the performance characteristics of a lot of aircraft operating from these airfields means that they will get in the way as they slowly plod their way up to FL80 or 90, whilst doing 120Kts ground speed
Your route from Shoreham to Cambridge would not get to fly that way at any level in the TMA, because of the various holds for major airports, or various zones, being used by airline operators that pay for the service
If you really are talking about aircraft being allowed to fly VFR at 4000, then you really need to understand how the airspace is designed and why. The base is designed on climb characteristics of passenger aircraft leaving major licensed airports. It is there to afford some safety in the climb/descent i.e. the airspace base raised the further from an airport you get. That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.
You really need to understand the reasons behind airspace design and not just throw your toys out the cot because you can't fly wherever you want. It is an intense area of aircraft operation. The airspace is designed to provide protection. Whilst not maybe the most efficient use, it is also designed to allow as much Class G as possible, e.g. underneath.
Unless you are willing to dig deep and pay quite hefty charges to facilitate extra controllers and support staff and equipment, I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc, entry will be subject to traffic, you would not get charged if you couldn't enter.
In the ideal world, everyone would be able to do what they want when they wanted, but it is not the ideal world. The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users, and it is in the interests of UK PLC to protect trade and get money into the country via passenger transport etc.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing you said "The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users". I agree of course that ATC is funded by the airports and hence the CAT BUT, can you explain how that equates to funding THE AIRSPACE? As I see it you get a chunk of airspace for which you pay NOTHING then you have to provide ATC for the CAT to get them in and out of your airport and they pay for the priviledge quite rightly. That does not mean you have the EXCLUSIVE use of that chunk of airspace to charge others for using it. Under the terms of the allocated airspace it has to be available (we are talking Class D for example) for all users within the realms of safe operation and just because NATS or whoever decides to not fund enough controllers to manage that chunk of airspace is no reason to deny access. I appreciate it is not the fault of the controller but unless you the controllers start to apply a bit more pressurte on your employers then this will never be resolved.
I am quite happy to take any controller on a tour VFR and let you have first hand experience of what is faced by GA on a daily basis
I am quite happy to take any controller on a tour VFR and let you have first hand experience of what is faced by GA on a daily basis