Olympic airspace validation
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and don't tell me, you believe the money from tax on petrol goes to road maintenance too!! ATC service is paid for from route charges, and route charges only. If you pay route charges then you can expect a service.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NotLongNow - actually I think that is the nub of the problem. It is not you, the ATCO, who decides the details of who/what/why/where etc. but the terms of the licence for the airspace and you are (supposedly) required to administer that airspace in accordance with the terms set out in various documents. So please do not say if we pay route charges we can have a service. It is not you that makes that decision but as the previous poster says the poor attitude to GA is sometime quite obvious. For example there is a requirement for you, when access has been requested to your!! airspace and you cannot allow at that time, to provide an estimate of when such access will be granted. How often have you followed that rule please?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand on heart, in the last approx. 20 years, I have refused a joining clearance 3 times, twice due to weather and once for a Mayday causing some 'interest' in the sector. In all cases, I gave an estimated wait time, and in all 3 cases the a/c elected to continue 'outside' rather than wait. Your point???
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Long Now, I am genuinely impressed and your are to be congratulated. My experience of VFR in the UK over the last 28 years suggests you are a rarity and whilst I have always had a very good service from UK controllers when in CAS it has become increasingly difficult to gain access. As I said in a prior post I now routinely avoid the vast majority of CAS for that reason. With traffic volumes at an all time low for many years one would have expected more access to CAS and not less.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you're VFR then I'm not going to give you a clearance, as my airspace is classified as to prohibit that. Argue the toss with the regulator, not the ATCO. Also, a correction, if you're exempt from route charges (weight being a prime example) you can still get a service, just file an IFR flight plan!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SteakandChips...
Things have moved on somewhat, old chap. Has done for quite some number of years now. The 'justification' for the tax is no longer 'just'.
The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.
INCAS, money is generated by route fees.
Unlike Like Not Long Now, I have never refused CAS joins, I have been fortunate not to have had to.
Like Not Long Now, the airspace I control in does not allow for VFR traffic... as was explained above your post, we are talking Class A... the reason we are talking class A is because the title of this thread is 'Olympic Airspace Validation'... which is Class A airspace. Also please read the very short post immediately before you one...
The confusion was further added to by a post by SoaringHigh (above)showing a chart, with a fictitious route to be flown at 10,000', VFR, wholly within Class A.
Now as a pilot with your experience, you will understand that what you are talking about, and what I am talking about, are two totally different things.
But just to repeat; AVGAS tax does not pay for the provision of ATC within CAS. As a T67 pilot, if you were to file an IFR flight plan to fly through the LTMA, you would get clearance and because of aircraft weight, would pay nothing for it... The gas you consumed would line the coffers of the Government.
As a pilot of a slow, light aircraft... you would cause a higher workload by being in the sirspace because you are there for longer, take longer (usually) to climb, and usually cruise at an awkward level. That's not a 'stinking attitude', it's a fact I'm afraid.
Despite that fact, I will reiterate that in the airspace I work, I have never refused a join, and most of my colleagues have neither.
Only a very few, like Not Long Now, have experienced conditions bad enough that it was felt refusal was the only course of action in the interest of safety.
SoCal App
Totally different airspace, with different rules.
Heathrow and Gatwick, 2 of several major airports within the area... with a hell of a lot more than one GA airfield within a couple of miles...
You cannot compare your airspace with the LTMA, both are unique.
You seem to forget the extra tax that was put on AVGAS which we all use ( well most of GA) that was justified all those years ago as paying for your "services".
The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.
INCAS, money is generated by route fees.
Unlike Like Not Long Now, I have never refused CAS joins, I have been fortunate not to have had to.
Like Not Long Now, the airspace I control in does not allow for VFR traffic... as was explained above your post, we are talking Class A... the reason we are talking class A is because the title of this thread is 'Olympic Airspace Validation'... which is Class A airspace. Also please read the very short post immediately before you one...
The confusion was further added to by a post by SoaringHigh (above)showing a chart, with a fictitious route to be flown at 10,000', VFR, wholly within Class A.
Now as a pilot with your experience, you will understand that what you are talking about, and what I am talking about, are two totally different things.
But just to repeat; AVGAS tax does not pay for the provision of ATC within CAS. As a T67 pilot, if you were to file an IFR flight plan to fly through the LTMA, you would get clearance and because of aircraft weight, would pay nothing for it... The gas you consumed would line the coffers of the Government.
As a pilot of a slow, light aircraft... you would cause a higher workload by being in the sirspace because you are there for longer, take longer (usually) to climb, and usually cruise at an awkward level. That's not a 'stinking attitude', it's a fact I'm afraid.
Despite that fact, I will reiterate that in the airspace I work, I have never refused a join, and most of my colleagues have neither.
Only a very few, like Not Long Now, have experienced conditions bad enough that it was felt refusal was the only course of action in the interest of safety.
SoCal App
Totally different airspace, with different rules.
Heathrow and Gatwick, 2 of several major airports within the area... with a hell of a lot more than one GA airfield within a couple of miles...
You cannot compare your airspace with the LTMA, both are unique.
Last edited by anotherthing; 30th Jun 2011 at 00:51.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.
The most recent CAA review of LARS funding concluded that changes, such as moving to hypothecation of fuel duty, charging at point of use or other ways of billing the main user had disadvantages such that no change was made.
So, the airlines very begrudgingly continue to fund LARS through route charges.
It's also almost certainly the case that the LARS funding that is received doesn't actually cover the cost of providing the service. So LARS users are in fact being subsidised both by the airlines and the ATC service providers.
It might be worth researching the history of LARS and how it seems to have changed from an occasional service when capacity was spare to something that is now expected to be open and manned at published times despite the fact that costs probably are not being covered.
The London LARS services provided from Farnborough were intially (and could still be) funded by NATS Services Ltd from it's own contingency funds, not even from en-route charges.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roffa,
Unless things have changed since PPP, HM Taxpayer pays a paltry sum towards ATSOCAS/LARS.
It certainly used to be the case that money was given to LARS units, however it barely covered the salary of one member of staff, never mind all the staff and equipment needed! There may be a difference between LARS provided as part of a 'bolt' on by ANSP's such as NATS and LARS provided by HMG dictate from military units where, I think, the equivalent of one persons salary was given by HMG as reward for the provision!
Chevvron,
NATS and Farnborough LARS are possibly different in-so-much it was a decision by NATS, and not part of any Government policy, to provide a LARS service from Farnborough, in an effort (that has had some considerable success) to prevent infringements and airprox's with traffic flying under the LTMA and into and out of LF Clutch airfields; a requirement from one of the previous safety plans. NATS therefore covers the cost for this service (and by default the airlines pay for it through route charges).
Unless things have changed since PPP, HM Taxpayer pays a paltry sum towards ATSOCAS/LARS.
It certainly used to be the case that money was given to LARS units, however it barely covered the salary of one member of staff, never mind all the staff and equipment needed! There may be a difference between LARS provided as part of a 'bolt' on by ANSP's such as NATS and LARS provided by HMG dictate from military units where, I think, the equivalent of one persons salary was given by HMG as reward for the provision!
Chevvron,
NATS and Farnborough LARS are possibly different in-so-much it was a decision by NATS, and not part of any Government policy, to provide a LARS service from Farnborough, in an effort (that has had some considerable success) to prevent infringements and airprox's with traffic flying under the LTMA and into and out of LF Clutch airfields; a requirement from one of the previous safety plans. NATS therefore covers the cost for this service (and by default the airlines pay for it through route charges).
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then I'm afraid the confusion lies more squarely at his, or both of your feet, as you didn't correct it
My posts were in response to the comment you made about an "inordinate amount of infringements" on June 14th and I was simply highlighting the fact that over-complex airspace and no-VFR access are also reasons for infringements, as well as pilot navigation too.
... off the top of my head I believe it is in the region of 30-40%, a not insignificant number.
You have the remaining 85%+ to go.
5milesbaby:
you refer to your diagram but fail to answer my question as to what your diagram is showing
however excluding VFR traffic is done for a very good reason.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 1st Jul 2011 at 12:07.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<We cannot simply pass traffic, we must provide standard separation.>>
Which is good. So far as I am aware, the last mid-air collision in UK controlled airspace involving passenger aircraft was in 1946. How many have there been in the USA in the same period?
Which is good. So far as I am aware, the last mid-air collision in UK controlled airspace involving passenger aircraft was in 1946. How many have there been in the USA in the same period?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many have there been in the USA in the same period?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sarf England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the last UK mid-air collision involving a commercial airliner was in 1948. Since then, there have been at least 16 such incidents in the US. Draw your own conclusions, but I would say it's hardly a glowing recommendation for US airspace planning.
Back to the subject of the thread now, maybe?
LTP
Back to the subject of the thread now, maybe?
LTP
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soaringhigh360, unfortunately your link in your PM to me is to a website that needs a Microsoft operating system to view, so I sadly cannot. You say it all in the description though, that it shows base level changes AND airway boundaries. Not all airway boundaries are points of changes of base levels, therefore your diagram is certainly misleading as I originally said.
Get the approval, and you can come play VFR in my airspace, just have to be FL200+......
Get the approval, and you can come play VFR in my airspace, just have to be FL200+......
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London 2012 airspace restrictions announced
Further development of the airspace security restrictions covering the London Olympic and Paralympic Games for 2012 were announced July 19 by the UK Government, as part of its objective to deliver of a safe and secure Games for all.
Read details at: Air Traffic Management : Strategy, Technology and Management for the world's most global industry
Read details at: Air Traffic Management : Strategy, Technology and Management for the world's most global industry
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing,
VFR does not go in "willy nilly" in the US.
But VFR is allowed in under guidance and control in Class B or C airspace and under protection from IFR, etc.
I am not throwing my toys out of a cot. I was highlighting the fact that allowing as much Class G as possible:
1. Has made your operations within Class A probably more intense than it could be
2. Reduces or stops safe VFR access - flying in CAS is safer than OCAS
3. Increases the amount of infringements due to your complicated boundaries and base levels, as shown on my diagram.
Some countries like the US and France pays for its ATC out of taxation. Other countries like Germany and Canada have approach navigation charges operating on a cost recovery basis. If there are AVGAS taxes it should fund ATC, airports etc. If there are no taxes, then of course the users should pay for it.
There should never be priority between who's operating commercially or non-commercially.
In the US an ATC service is provided on a first-come-first-served basis with some exceptions, one being IFR aircraft having priority over SVFR.
Class A should be minimized whereever possible. This includes your lower airways too. All non-instrument rated pilots, regardless of what they are flying, ain't gonna like it.
And use of low level Class A is completely against the principles of AOPA.
No problems at all under IFR. As of today Eurocontrol accepts routing of OCK M185 BPK DCT BKY at FL 100 in the flight plan. On the day you might tactically vector me on another route under your direction, and I am happy with that.
I shouldn't expect this clearance to only be granted if I file IFR. Especially when it is clear VMC.
So if I file IFR there will always be capacity and when I fly VFR there will never be capacity? There's a deep rooted ATC issue somewhere.
5milesbaby,
I disagree. Your infringement numbers are evidence that this has failed.
Have you considered partitioning controlled airspace with different transit/approach/departure sectors for the different categories (ie. A,B,C,D) of airplanes on safety grounds? This includes both IFR and VFR which are operate safely under control.
One should study the infringement problem and compare your stats with other countries. I don't think us US PPLs navigate any less or better than our European trained counterparts. What is definitely true is that the airspace volumes are more predictable with concentric circles centered around VORs based at the airport or airspace boundaries following prominent visual features on the ground. Hence I'm not surprised places like Stansted keep getting busted on a daily basis.
My guess is that if some here firmly believe that all existing and complex Class A airspace should be left as it is and people prevented from access, these infringement numbers are never going to come down significantly. Good luck!
That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.
Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc
Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc
But VFR is allowed in under guidance and control in Class B or C airspace and under protection from IFR, etc.
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.
1. Has made your operations within Class A probably more intense than it could be
2. Reduces or stops safe VFR access - flying in CAS is safer than OCAS
3. Increases the amount of infringements due to your complicated boundaries and base levels, as shown on my diagram.
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.
Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA
In the US an ATC service is provided on a first-come-first-served basis with some exceptions, one being IFR aircraft having priority over SVFR.
Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?
And use of low level Class A is completely against the principles of AOPA.
What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???
I shouldn't expect this clearance to only be granted if I file IFR. Especially when it is clear VMC.
I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc.
5milesbaby,
The TMA airspace is mainly designated Class A on safety grounds, a card that will ALWAYS win.
Have you considered partitioning controlled airspace with different transit/approach/departure sectors for the different categories (ie. A,B,C,D) of airplanes on safety grounds? This includes both IFR and VFR which are operate safely under control.
One should study the infringement problem and compare your stats with other countries. I don't think us US PPLs navigate any less or better than our European trained counterparts. What is definitely true is that the airspace volumes are more predictable with concentric circles centered around VORs based at the airport or airspace boundaries following prominent visual features on the ground. Hence I'm not surprised places like Stansted keep getting busted on a daily basis.
My guess is that if some here firmly believe that all existing and complex Class A airspace should be left as it is and people prevented from access, these infringement numbers are never going to come down significantly. Good luck!
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to start with a clean sheet of paper, instead of the dogs breakfast which has evolved, sorry, mutated in to the current UK airspace.
Alas time, money, politics, defence needs, and the various agendas of multiple user and service provider groups mean it will probably never happen
Alas time, money, politics, defence needs, and the various agendas of multiple user and service provider groups mean it will probably never happen
