Class E Airspace in the UK?
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The UK has no Class E ........
What would you have to say about this?
What would you have to say about this?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say you were wrong about that.
But you know what I mean.
Now why don't you all use your time to respond to the consultation!
this consultation does not seek comment on anticipated SERA developments (see Section 7), in particular SERA Part C
Thread Starter
this consultation does not seek comment on anticipated SERA developments (see Section 7), in particular SERA Part C
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an air traffic controller who has for many years provided a radar control service in class E airspace I can safely say that it is the most awful class of airspace I have ever encountered.
IFR flights are I'm sure blissfully unaware that whilst they are receiving a radar control service, they are not in a known traffic environment.
I can only pass traffic information on known traffic, or unknown traffic that I can actually see on radar. Do you have any idea how poorly many slow moving contacts such as microlights, gliders, and non metallic light aircraft show up on radar? Especially if they are not squawking as is common for this type of aircraft.
IFR aircraft can be legitimately flying at anything up to 250 knots. If youre flying at 90 kts What chance does an average jet airliner have of seeing a tiny aircraft at a potential closing speed of over 5.5 miles per minute? At what range could you even reasonably expect the crew of such an aircraft to even see the conflicting traffic?
Conversely, if the IFR aircraft is rapidly approaching a VFR aircraft in the quadrant between 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, what is the realistic chance of the VFR aircraft actually sighting the traffic in time to properly assess the relative flight paths and take avoiding action?
These are not far fetched, "what if" conjecture. These are borne out from real world experience and a long struggle to have a well used piece of class E airspace reclassified as class D, which was only forthcoming after a nasty airprox.
I find it astonishing that anyone with the intelligence to fly an aircraft of whatever variety could seriously advocate the increased use of class E airspace. It puts you at risk, and it puts Joe Public in the air and on the ground at risk.
It's not about preventing VFR flights from entering the airspace, it's just about knowing they are there and being able to avoid them accordingly.
IFR flights are I'm sure blissfully unaware that whilst they are receiving a radar control service, they are not in a known traffic environment.
I can only pass traffic information on known traffic, or unknown traffic that I can actually see on radar. Do you have any idea how poorly many slow moving contacts such as microlights, gliders, and non metallic light aircraft show up on radar? Especially if they are not squawking as is common for this type of aircraft.
IFR aircraft can be legitimately flying at anything up to 250 knots. If youre flying at 90 kts What chance does an average jet airliner have of seeing a tiny aircraft at a potential closing speed of over 5.5 miles per minute? At what range could you even reasonably expect the crew of such an aircraft to even see the conflicting traffic?
Conversely, if the IFR aircraft is rapidly approaching a VFR aircraft in the quadrant between 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock, what is the realistic chance of the VFR aircraft actually sighting the traffic in time to properly assess the relative flight paths and take avoiding action?
These are not far fetched, "what if" conjecture. These are borne out from real world experience and a long struggle to have a well used piece of class E airspace reclassified as class D, which was only forthcoming after a nasty airprox.
I find it astonishing that anyone with the intelligence to fly an aircraft of whatever variety could seriously advocate the increased use of class E airspace. It puts you at risk, and it puts Joe Public in the air and on the ground at risk.
It's not about preventing VFR flights from entering the airspace, it's just about knowing they are there and being able to avoid them accordingly.
Thread Starter
Mad as a Mad Thing
I am not suggesting that Class E is the right solution for the kind of areas you describe. As you say, these should be Class D (or stricter), and ICAO agrees with you. My point was that we should consider converting some of the current expanse of Class G into Class E.
All of the issues you describe apply in UK Class G airspace when IFR traffic is receiving a deconfliction service, which is daily business at any military airfield with a MATZ, and around a number of civil IFR airports such as Exeter and Inverness. And in Class G airspace,VFR traffic can legitimately be 'clear of cloud, in sight of surface' with visibility sufficiently poor that high-speed IFR traffic has absolutely no hope of seeing it. At least in Class E you can assume that the unknown VFR traffic is complying with a more stringent set of weather parameters.
I agree with you that Class E is not a known traffic environment. It is not meant to be a sanitised area in which the controller rules the roost, which I know is an odd concept to some UK ATCers. The reason why I think Class E would be a better way of defining some of our current Class G airspace is that it provides an internationally-understood description of separation standards, service provision, pilot and controller responsibilities, etc - which at the moment are defined on a UK-specific basis through application of FIS in Class G.
I would argue that the majority of UK Class G airspace above 3000' or so is already operated along Class E lines, with the overwhelming majority of enroute IFR traffic getting a service of some description, most likely a deconfliction service if IMC, and the majority of VFR traffic going about its business unfettered by ATC. So why not call a spade a spade? As I've said before, it's not about safety, it's about using the international language of ICAO to describe what's going on, rather than the bespoke language of the CAA.
I am not suggesting that Class E is the right solution for the kind of areas you describe. As you say, these should be Class D (or stricter), and ICAO agrees with you. My point was that we should consider converting some of the current expanse of Class G into Class E.
All of the issues you describe apply in UK Class G airspace when IFR traffic is receiving a deconfliction service, which is daily business at any military airfield with a MATZ, and around a number of civil IFR airports such as Exeter and Inverness. And in Class G airspace,VFR traffic can legitimately be 'clear of cloud, in sight of surface' with visibility sufficiently poor that high-speed IFR traffic has absolutely no hope of seeing it. At least in Class E you can assume that the unknown VFR traffic is complying with a more stringent set of weather parameters.
I agree with you that Class E is not a known traffic environment. It is not meant to be a sanitised area in which the controller rules the roost, which I know is an odd concept to some UK ATCers
. The reason why I think Class E would be a better way of defining some of our current Class G airspace is that it provides an internationally-understood description of separation standards, service provision, pilot and controller responsibilities, etc - which at the moment are defined on a UK-specific basis through application of FIS in Class G.I would argue that the majority of UK Class G airspace above 3000' or so is already operated along Class E lines, with the overwhelming majority of enroute IFR traffic getting a service of some description, most likely a deconfliction service if IMC, and the majority of VFR traffic going about its business unfettered by ATC. So why not call a spade a spade? As I've said before, it's not about safety, it's about using the international language of ICAO to describe what's going on, rather than the bespoke language of the CAA.
Last edited by Easy Street; 20th Jul 2013 at 21:34.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we simply use three classes of airspace:-
Class A - Only IFR traffic permitted (At the moment SVFR is permitted but this will disappear next year)
Class C - IFR vs IFR, traffic separated. IFR vs VFR, traffic separated. VFR vs VFR, traffic information provided.
Class G - Your on your own.
Class A - Only IFR traffic permitted (At the moment SVFR is permitted but this will disappear next year)
Class C - IFR vs IFR, traffic separated. IFR vs VFR, traffic separated. VFR vs VFR, traffic information provided.
Class G - Your on your own.
Last edited by Another_CFI; 20th Jul 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget Class A.
It's used where ANSPs are incapable of coping with the VFR and IFR traffic mix.
Class A merely serves as an easy 'get-out' clause to help them address the issue by banning traffic from airspace (predominantly GA that flies VFR).
It's used where ANSPs are incapable of coping with the VFR and IFR traffic mix.
Class A merely serves as an easy 'get-out' clause to help them address the issue by banning traffic from airspace (predominantly GA that flies VFR).
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 21st Jul 2013 at 10:04.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In the middle
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad As Mad Thing
Just a modest personal view... If we forget class A, there are still B, C, and D - where an "invisible hand" is helping those "pedestrians to run across motorways" and not always "on their own look out"...
By the way, I agree that class E can be difficult... But the rules are well known to the "airmen" operating in it.
Just a modest personal view... If we forget class A, there are still B, C, and D - where an "invisible hand" is helping those "pedestrians to run across motorways" and not always "on their own look out"...
By the way, I agree that class E can be difficult... But the rules are well known to the "airmen" operating in it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a IFR flying pilot's point of view, Class E is probably also awful, compared to ATSOCAS with Traffic / Deconfliction service.
Why?
Why?
- It does not offer any real additional protection [IFR/IFR separation is nice to have, but only covers a small fraction of traffic]
- But now I have to file flight plans, deal with IFPS etc. just to go IMC. Currently I just ask xxx Radar if there is any traffic to affect and climb on top...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a problem with filing a flight plan? Some countries require it for all flights travelling further than 25nm from point of departure. If the system to file them is simple and efficient I wouldn't be too bothered - I did it for the better part of 5 years while flying in Canada.
The difference between having class E and class G around places like Exeter, Farnborough, Inverness, Manston, Norwich, Oxford, Southend, etc. would, to a pilot not "brought up" in UK airspace, mean receiving a service that is clear and familiar. Everyone who has a pilot's licence knows what separation is and isn't provided in class E whereas only people who have spent some time flying in UK class G airspace with an expert beside them will begin to fathom how it might just about work out to more or less the same thing. It took me a very long time to fully comprehend receiving a clearance whilst being uncontrolled, and requiring another clearance to continue once airborne. All a bit 1950s really.
With regional airports, outside controlled airspace, becoming busier and attracting more traffic, especially biz jets, realigning the UK's system with a well known international standard with little practical change can't be a bad thing? The class E airspace could even have operating hours to get around requiring 24/7 ATC coverage... Would still be clearer than the current mess.
The difference between having class E and class G around places like Exeter, Farnborough, Inverness, Manston, Norwich, Oxford, Southend, etc. would, to a pilot not "brought up" in UK airspace, mean receiving a service that is clear and familiar. Everyone who has a pilot's licence knows what separation is and isn't provided in class E whereas only people who have spent some time flying in UK class G airspace with an expert beside them will begin to fathom how it might just about work out to more or less the same thing. It took me a very long time to fully comprehend receiving a clearance whilst being uncontrolled, and requiring another clearance to continue once airborne. All a bit 1950s really.
With regional airports, outside controlled airspace, becoming busier and attracting more traffic, especially biz jets, realigning the UK's system with a well known international standard with little practical change can't be a bad thing? The class E airspace could even have operating hours to get around requiring 24/7 ATC coverage... Would still be clearer than the current mess.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regional airports outside cas getting busier and busier, the only way forward is class D CTR and CTA around said busy airport to protect those planes paying for the ATC service and carrying passengers.
There is going to be an almighty clanger at a certain airport in the south east, if changes are not made!!!! Probably involve a glider!!!
There is going to be an almighty clanger at a certain airport in the south east, if changes are not made!!!! Probably involve a glider!!!
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Cobalt
Currently I just ask xxx Radar if there is any traffic to affect and climb on top...
Cobalt: "xxx Radar, G-XXXX, position / altitude, request IFR pickup for climb to VMC on top".
ATC: "G-XXXX, xxx Radar, squawk xxxx"
Cobalt: "Squawk xxxx, G-XXXX"
ATC: "G-XXXX, identified, IFR at minute xx, climb FL190, own navigation, report VMC on top".
Cobalt: "Climb FL190, own navigation, wilco, G-XXXX".
Cobalt: "G-XXXX, passing FL80, VMC on top, cancel IFR".
ATC: "G-XXXX, IFR cancelled at minute xx, report changing enroute."
Cobalt: "G-XXXX Squawking 7000, enroute" (or request VFR flight following*).
Note: "Radar control" does not need to be stated. The moment the controller states "IFR at....", the contract is set - you are now IFR traffic in controlled airspace and by implication ATC instructions are mandatory. Similarly, at the moment of "IFR cancelled at..." you are now VFR traffic in Class E and can do as you please.
No paperwork necessary. Simple. Standard.
* - subject to ATC capacity. But then, that is no different to the position with ATSOCAS!
Last edited by Easy Street; 22nd Jul 2013 at 21:31.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly.
Class "G": blah blah. Can, if not too risk averse, be done without ATC
Class "E": blah blah blah blaah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Cleared blah blah blah. Clearance not assured, in fact often denied for reasons other than separation, and subject to conditions, such as MRVA in Germany
... I rest my case ...
Class "G": blah blah. Can, if not too risk averse, be done without ATC
Class "E": blah blah blah blaah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Cleared blah blah blah. Clearance not assured, in fact often denied for reasons other than separation, and subject to conditions, such as MRVA in Germany
... I rest my case ...
Thread Starter
Reviving my old thread and making a very long post - a double crime - but it seems the appropriate place to highlight that the CAA looks on track to resolve much of the inconsistency surrounding service provision in UK Class E that was the subject of much of the discussion above. The Class F Replacement consultation response contains the statement that
Allied to the recent CAP774 amendments, I would almost hazard the statement that the CAA is moving in a sensible direction! The long text that follows is from the same link and indicates how the new Class E+TMZ airspace is likely to be handled. To my mind, such airspace would also be quite suitable for replacing MATZs to give a bit more protection to military traffic on IMC departures / recoveries without overly restricting civil aviation - how about it, CAA / MAA ?
Assessment of UK regulatory material has highlighted inconsistencies in the manner in which Class E service provision requirements are presented in the UK AIP. These are in the process of being corrected in order to provide the necessary consistency
The need for Class E+TMZ CONOPS
32. ICAO Annex 11 Chapter 2 states that IFR and VFR flights are permitted in Class E; IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. In service provision terms, the change from Class F to Class E will guarantee the provision of ‘air traffic control service’ to IFR traffic. With this comes greater clarity on services to IFR traffic, and a greater consistency of service than could be the case in Class G.
33. With regards to service provision to VFR traffic, stakeholders were invited to comment on current UK service provision arrangements within Class E – specifically the merits (or otherwise) of providing Air Traffic Control Service to communicating flights, and whether or not such provision is to be limited to the designated airspace controlling authority. Limited feedback was received, but nevertheless this informed the post-consultation development of the CONOPS.
34. The draft CONOPS can be summarised as follows:
a. Class E airspace is controlled airspace in which IFR and VFR flights are permitted, but only IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance.
b. VFR pilots in Class E airspace must be aware of the Class E airspace VMC and the need for separation based on the ‘see and avoid’ principle.
c. IFR pilots in Class E airspace need to be aware that despite being in receipt of an ATC clearance, they may be required to manoeuvre in order to comply with Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 Rule 8, and shall advise ATC whenever this is necessary.
d. ATCOs need to understand that pilots of IFR flights may need to vary from their clearance in order to comply with Rules of the Air.
e. VFR aircraft within Class E airspace that is also notified as a TMZ shall carry and operate a Mode S SSR transponder.
f. VFR aircraft operating without a functioning Mode S SSR transponder shall obtain approval to enter the airspace from the notified airspace controlling authority. Such aircraft are required to be either in radio contact with the
controlling authority (but would not require a clearance to cross), or to operate in accordance with agreed procedures. Appropriate arrangements for non-radio access by aircraft without an appropriate or functioning transponder may be developed at local level. However, CAA will develop proposed standardised approvals for consideration by airspace controlling authorities. CAA will also develop guidance and RT phraseology for controllers in tactically applying such approvals.
g. All IFR flights shall be subject to an ATC clearance and require continuous twoway communications.
h. VFR flights do not require ATC clearance and, subject to compliance with the notified TMZ requirements, do not require two-way communications.
i. VFR flights not complying with the notified TMZ SSR requirements require approval to enter the airspace.
j. ATS provision in Class E airspace is determined by the flight rules that the aircraft is operating under.
k. An Air Traffic Control Service (Radar Control Service where surveillance is utilised) shall be provided to IFR aircraft.
l. ATC shall separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft.
m. IFR aircraft shall be provided with traffic information, as far as is practical, on VFR aircraft. The controller shall update the traffic information if it continues to constitute a definite hazard, or if requested by the pilot.
n. IFR flights shall be provided with avoiding action when requested by the pilot. If the pilot reports that he has the unknown aircraft in sight further controller action may then be limited to passing traffic information. Provision of collision avoidance advice to IFR flights is considered to be addressed through extant ‘duty of care’
and does not need to be explicitly prescribed with regard to Class E airspace.
o. VFR flights are not separated.
p. VFR flights that request an ATS shall be provided with traffic information as far as practical. This shall be achieved through the provision of a UK Flight Information Service as requested by the pilot, subject to ATS unit capability to provide the requested service.
q. IFR flights transitioning from Class G to Class E airspace and vice-versa will be advised of ATS changes as per normal ATC procedures for entering and leaving controlled airspace.
r. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS and identified using surveillance systems transitioning from Class G to Class E airspace will be advised that they are entering Class E airspace and to maintain VMC.
s. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS and identified using surveillance systems transitioning from Class E to Class G airspace will be advised that they are leaving Class E airspace.
t. VFR Flights that have not been identified using surveillance systems may be instructed to report entering/leaving Class E airspace. Established reporting points and geographical points may also be employed as necessary.
u. IFR and VFR flights transitioning from Class A/C/D airspace into Class E airspace shall be advised by ATC that they are entering Class E airspace.
v. IFR flights transitioning from Class E airspace into Class A/C/D airspace shall be advised of the change in airspace classification.
w. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS in Class E airspace and transitioning into Class C-D airspace must request a clearance, and subject to such a clearance, they will be advised of ATS changes as per current procedures.
x. If a pilot of a VFR aircraft reports that they are unable to maintain VMC and are able to continue flight under IFR, ATC shall provide Radar Control (if in contact with a unit authorised to provide such service) and separate aircraft as soon as practical. Reduced vertical separation may be applied as necessary until standard separation is able to be applied. Essential traffic information shall be provided.
y. ATC units may need to develop proposals for CAA approval to provide SSR only services, as currently provided in Class F airspace, for its direct replacement as Class E.
32. ICAO Annex 11 Chapter 2 states that IFR and VFR flights are permitted in Class E; IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. In service provision terms, the change from Class F to Class E will guarantee the provision of ‘air traffic control service’ to IFR traffic. With this comes greater clarity on services to IFR traffic, and a greater consistency of service than could be the case in Class G.
33. With regards to service provision to VFR traffic, stakeholders were invited to comment on current UK service provision arrangements within Class E – specifically the merits (or otherwise) of providing Air Traffic Control Service to communicating flights, and whether or not such provision is to be limited to the designated airspace controlling authority. Limited feedback was received, but nevertheless this informed the post-consultation development of the CONOPS.
34. The draft CONOPS can be summarised as follows:
a. Class E airspace is controlled airspace in which IFR and VFR flights are permitted, but only IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance.
b. VFR pilots in Class E airspace must be aware of the Class E airspace VMC and the need for separation based on the ‘see and avoid’ principle.
c. IFR pilots in Class E airspace need to be aware that despite being in receipt of an ATC clearance, they may be required to manoeuvre in order to comply with Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 Rule 8, and shall advise ATC whenever this is necessary.
d. ATCOs need to understand that pilots of IFR flights may need to vary from their clearance in order to comply with Rules of the Air.
e. VFR aircraft within Class E airspace that is also notified as a TMZ shall carry and operate a Mode S SSR transponder.
f. VFR aircraft operating without a functioning Mode S SSR transponder shall obtain approval to enter the airspace from the notified airspace controlling authority. Such aircraft are required to be either in radio contact with the
controlling authority (but would not require a clearance to cross), or to operate in accordance with agreed procedures. Appropriate arrangements for non-radio access by aircraft without an appropriate or functioning transponder may be developed at local level. However, CAA will develop proposed standardised approvals for consideration by airspace controlling authorities. CAA will also develop guidance and RT phraseology for controllers in tactically applying such approvals.
g. All IFR flights shall be subject to an ATC clearance and require continuous twoway communications.
h. VFR flights do not require ATC clearance and, subject to compliance with the notified TMZ requirements, do not require two-way communications.
i. VFR flights not complying with the notified TMZ SSR requirements require approval to enter the airspace.
j. ATS provision in Class E airspace is determined by the flight rules that the aircraft is operating under.
k. An Air Traffic Control Service (Radar Control Service where surveillance is utilised) shall be provided to IFR aircraft.
l. ATC shall separate IFR aircraft from other IFR aircraft.
m. IFR aircraft shall be provided with traffic information, as far as is practical, on VFR aircraft. The controller shall update the traffic information if it continues to constitute a definite hazard, or if requested by the pilot.
n. IFR flights shall be provided with avoiding action when requested by the pilot. If the pilot reports that he has the unknown aircraft in sight further controller action may then be limited to passing traffic information. Provision of collision avoidance advice to IFR flights is considered to be addressed through extant ‘duty of care’
and does not need to be explicitly prescribed with regard to Class E airspace.
o. VFR flights are not separated.
p. VFR flights that request an ATS shall be provided with traffic information as far as practical. This shall be achieved through the provision of a UK Flight Information Service as requested by the pilot, subject to ATS unit capability to provide the requested service.
q. IFR flights transitioning from Class G to Class E airspace and vice-versa will be advised of ATS changes as per normal ATC procedures for entering and leaving controlled airspace.
r. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS and identified using surveillance systems transitioning from Class G to Class E airspace will be advised that they are entering Class E airspace and to maintain VMC.
s. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS and identified using surveillance systems transitioning from Class E to Class G airspace will be advised that they are leaving Class E airspace.
t. VFR Flights that have not been identified using surveillance systems may be instructed to report entering/leaving Class E airspace. Established reporting points and geographical points may also be employed as necessary.
u. IFR and VFR flights transitioning from Class A/C/D airspace into Class E airspace shall be advised by ATC that they are entering Class E airspace.
v. IFR flights transitioning from Class E airspace into Class A/C/D airspace shall be advised of the change in airspace classification.
w. VFR flights in receipt of an ATS in Class E airspace and transitioning into Class C-D airspace must request a clearance, and subject to such a clearance, they will be advised of ATS changes as per current procedures.
x. If a pilot of a VFR aircraft reports that they are unable to maintain VMC and are able to continue flight under IFR, ATC shall provide Radar Control (if in contact with a unit authorised to provide such service) and separate aircraft as soon as practical. Reduced vertical separation may be applied as necessary until standard separation is able to be applied. Essential traffic information shall be provided.
y. ATC units may need to develop proposals for CAA approval to provide SSR only services, as currently provided in Class F airspace, for its direct replacement as Class E.
