Aerodrome FIS airfields within Class D
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodrome FIS airfields within Class D
Does anyone know of any examples within Europe of an airfield where an Aerodrome FIS is provided within Class D airspace (e.g. a GA airfield, or heliport within the Class D airspace of another larger airport?)
There are a couple of examples around London (e.g. Denham), but these ATZs are right on the border of Class G, and aircraft usually enter to/ from via that Class G. Barton used to be similar where it used to have a Class D Local Flying Area, which bordered on Class G.
I'm really after an example of where perhaps the 'parent' ATC unit controls the traffic up to the ATZ and then hands over to an AFIS unit for the circuit.
Many thanks
There are a couple of examples around London (e.g. Denham), but these ATZs are right on the border of Class G, and aircraft usually enter to/ from via that Class G. Barton used to be similar where it used to have a Class D Local Flying Area, which bordered on Class G.
I'm really after an example of where perhaps the 'parent' ATC unit controls the traffic up to the ATZ and then hands over to an AFIS unit for the circuit.
Many thanks
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGCD, in its later years? Although the controllers there are ADV rated. I think EGCB is technically inside Class D, although it has its own access lane. Many years ago there was a procedure for an ILS etc at EGCC followed by a visual break-off for Barton.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Zooker.
EGCD is ATC (ADV as you say not AFIS, although may actually be ADI as the ILS is still aval). If it were AFIS this would be the perfect example of what I'm looking for.
EGCB is AFIS, but is is now wholly within Class G (as mentioned above it used to have a delegated Class D Local Flying Area bordering on Class G from which the traffic joined/ departed. The ILS to visual is still done occasionally on an ad-hoc basis.
EGCD is ATC (ADV as you say not AFIS, although may actually be ADI as the ILS is still aval). If it were AFIS this would be the perfect example of what I'm looking for.
EGCB is AFIS, but is is now wholly within Class G (as mentioned above it used to have a delegated Class D Local Flying Area bordering on Class G from which the traffic joined/ departed. The ILS to visual is still done occasionally on an ad-hoc basis.
Last edited by Squadgy; 3rd Aug 2011 at 17:09.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Technically under the present rules I think it can happen but it would probably be a creative interpretation.
If the FIS aerodrome is in Class D, then it's in Class D - whether in the ATZ or not is not going to change the airspace class. Consequently all flights are subject to ATC clearance from the controlling authority - this will be the ATC unit and not the FISO by definition.
If everyone involved was minded to make it happen I think what would have to happen is that a defined portion of airspace around the FIS aerodrome would have to be set aside for the aerodrome's use. Within that airspace there would have to be a 'standing' clearance for VFR flights to take place with appropriate buffers built into the FIS aerodrome airspace to ensure that the traffic information passed by the ATC unit is adequate.
A couple of potential stumbling blocks.... You might find that some take the view that each flight at the FIS aerodrome should be subject to an individual clearance - but I think there are plenty of precedents where things take place in a portion of a CTZ without an individual clearance.
Maybe more problematic is the issue of responsibilities. The ATC unit is going to be responsible for the services within the airspace assigned to it - including the FIS at the remote aerodrome. From a legal perspective consider who will carry the liability if the FISO provides inaccurate or incorrect information (please note that I am not suggesting that a FISO is likely to do this for any reason but we're all human) - it's quite possible that the ATC unit may be considered to be ultimately responsible for the ATS in the airspace. The procedures and resources and the like that would be necessary to offload this liability would probably be significant and unless it offers a benefit to the ATC provider there would be little incentive for them to go to the trouble.
I'm not aware of anywhere which has such an arrangement but it's more likely somewhere where the same ANSP provides the service at both aerodromes. There certainly have been discussions about plans to downgrade some ATC units in Spain to FIS so you might find something similar to the situation that interests you down there.
Don't forget that within 18 months the way in which airspace is established and operated falls within EASA's competence and so you may find the rules change - although that doesn't mean for the better if past experience is anything to go by!
Drop me a PM if you've got any questions about what might be required by the CAA and so on - I have a bit of experience that might be of relevance, albeit it's a few years ago.
If the FIS aerodrome is in Class D, then it's in Class D - whether in the ATZ or not is not going to change the airspace class. Consequently all flights are subject to ATC clearance from the controlling authority - this will be the ATC unit and not the FISO by definition.
If everyone involved was minded to make it happen I think what would have to happen is that a defined portion of airspace around the FIS aerodrome would have to be set aside for the aerodrome's use. Within that airspace there would have to be a 'standing' clearance for VFR flights to take place with appropriate buffers built into the FIS aerodrome airspace to ensure that the traffic information passed by the ATC unit is adequate.
A couple of potential stumbling blocks.... You might find that some take the view that each flight at the FIS aerodrome should be subject to an individual clearance - but I think there are plenty of precedents where things take place in a portion of a CTZ without an individual clearance.
Maybe more problematic is the issue of responsibilities. The ATC unit is going to be responsible for the services within the airspace assigned to it - including the FIS at the remote aerodrome. From a legal perspective consider who will carry the liability if the FISO provides inaccurate or incorrect information (please note that I am not suggesting that a FISO is likely to do this for any reason but we're all human) - it's quite possible that the ATC unit may be considered to be ultimately responsible for the ATS in the airspace. The procedures and resources and the like that would be necessary to offload this liability would probably be significant and unless it offers a benefit to the ATC provider there would be little incentive for them to go to the trouble.
I'm not aware of anywhere which has such an arrangement but it's more likely somewhere where the same ANSP provides the service at both aerodromes. There certainly have been discussions about plans to downgrade some ATC units in Spain to FIS so you might find something similar to the situation that interests you down there.
Don't forget that within 18 months the way in which airspace is established and operated falls within EASA's competence and so you may find the rules change - although that doesn't mean for the better if past experience is anything to go by!
Drop me a PM if you've got any questions about what might be required by the CAA and so on - I have a bit of experience that might be of relevance, albeit it's a few years ago.
Squadgy: your example of Denham, in common with Fairoaks and White Waltham, is actually embedded in class A airspace not class D, and well established procedures exist to allow flight in the ATZs of all these airfields to take place without compliance with full IFR.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Will we need an answer to this to help permit GPS approaches to AFIS fields?
This is where EASA might be your saviour. I don't know whether this type of thing will fall high in their list of priorities but it will undoubtedly fall within their competence from December next year.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Germany we have Frankfurt-Egelsbach, EDFE, which is a GA INFO airfield within the Frankfurt, FRA, "D" controlzone. It has it's own approach and departure proceedures which were worked out by the Frankfurt ATC unit and mother company, DFS, and is coordinated with Frankfurt ATC. In normal, everyday flying you never need to contact Frankfurt, you contact EDFE directly. The system has been working for some years now with very few problems. It doesn't (yet) have any IFR.
As far as I know, other GA fields within "D" airspace, like Paderborn-Höxter, are controled by the local ATC, but I'm not sure on that.
As far as I know, other GA fields within "D" airspace, like Paderborn-Höxter, are controled by the local ATC, but I'm not sure on that.
