Class E Airspace in the UK?

[Easy Street]

With Single European Rules of the Air rapidly approaching, I've seen a CAA consultation document doing the rounds which asks some pointed questions about the future of ATSOCAS. For me as a military aviator the answer is blindingly obvious - align with France, Germany and the US (to name but 3) by changing all UK Class G airspace above, say, 3000' to Class E (with higher base altitudes around mountainous areas so that the base of Class E is always above MSA and is in radar / RT coverage).

However, for some reason, there appears to be institutional resistance to this airspace class in the UK - as witnessed in the CAA's own link. How is this airspace safely managed all over Europe and the US, but is not suitable in the UK? I imagine that the capacity of our privately-run civil ATC is one reason?

The power of the GA community is bound to be another reason - but Class E does little or nothing to stop them pootling around in VMC with no radio. It does force a requirement for instrument ratings in IMC (which I think is currently true anyway since the end of the IMCR?) and it forces pilots to get an ATC clearance to fly into cloud, which I think is entirely sensible and safe. However the language in this CAA link is so strongly in favour of retention of widespread Class G that I don't think they've left themselves any room for a U-turn!

The thoughts of the UK ATC fraternity on Class E as the majority UK airspace would be welcomed - I guess it would lead to the LARS covering more rigidly-defined areas and opening 24/7, and this would obviously be expensive. However I don't see how we can continue to justify allowing people to fly legally in cloud with no clearance or R/T at altitudes of up to FL195!

(Also, while I'm at it, I'd turn all ATZs with towers into non-radar Class D - the ANO definition of an ATZ practically mirrors the ICAO Class D definition anyway, doesn't it? All MATZs into Class E with a Class D inner core. Class B introduced for CTZs where really tight control of VFR traffic is desired, and more flexibility offered to VFR crossers at the remanining Class D CTZs. None of this would have any practical impact on the freedom of UK pilots to get around in VMC, provided they understood their air law - too many pilots automatically think of CAS as an absolute no-go zone and a re-education programme would be needed. All this would put our current bespoke system closer to a globally-understood legal and regulatory footing. How about it?!)

[rodan]

As you say, there would be massive institutional resistance to blanket Class E from all sides, and you've already identified the reason - if you have mandatory ATC for all IFR traffic throughout the entire FIR, 24/7, then you need ATCOs to control it.

Who pays for them? The GA sector isn't interested, they are quite happy as they are in Class G and will point to the complete absence of collisions in IMC in Class G since (probably?) WW2. The airlines via increased route charges? Fat chance. NATS? What's in it for them as a profit-making, private company? The taxpayer via the CAA/military? Not a snowballs chance in the current climate, at least not until there is a problem that needs addressing because the public becomes interested in it - ie. multiple collisions between uncontrolled traffic in IMC.

[OhNoCB]

too many pilots automatically think of CAS as an absolute no-go zone and a re-education programme would be needed.

While no CAS (except the obvious) should be seen as a no go area by pilots, it is often a problem caused by the controlling ATS wherein they will deny transits the majority of the time. If pilot A trundles up to Airspace Z and gets denied a transit time after time again, sooner or later he will stop asking or ask a lot less frequently, and will most likely mention to other pilots that it is difficult to get into so they are less likely to try and then they tell people the same.

[Jim59]

It does force a requirement for instrument ratings in IMC (which I think is currently true anyway since the end of the IMCR?)

IMCRs are still being issued.

IMCR holders get an IR(R) rating on their EASA licence.

EASA has proposed a new EIR (enroute IR) which will allow access to airways without a full IR. Meeting in Europe last week to discuss - part of comitology process. Vote expected in the autumn.

EASA has proposed a Sailplane Cloud Flying Rating - status same as EIR.

[bookworm]

It does force a requirement for instrument ratings in IMC (which I think is currently true anyway since the end of the IMCR?) and it forces pilots to get an ATC clearance to fly into cloud, which I think is entirely sensible and safe.

I'm glad you think it's sensible and safe. But let's look at the real life risk for a moment. Could you point me at the last mid-air collision in the UK that occurred in cloud please?

[Easy Street]

Could you point me at the last mid-air collision in the UK that occurred in cloud please?

I'm not approaching this solely from a 'risk' angle. While I believe it would reduce risk, I think it's also important to consider SERA and the alignment of UK procedures with other nations.

Our good IMC mid-air safety record is largely based on the application of airmanship and UK-only ATSOCAS; it's the pilot's choice whether to get a radar service for IFR in class G and thankfully it seems to have worked over the years. I don't think my suggestion would have a significant effect on the usability of any airspace - all that Class E does is force pilots to get a radar service to go IFR; if they were sensible they would have done it anyway. However it would take safety slightly away from the realms of airmanship and spare ATC capacity (which I think are inherently a bit difficult to pin down in a safety case) and into the realm of regulation.

No matter how good the safety record in Class G IFR, the fact is that the UK's approach to it is practically unique and non-compliant with ICAO and SERA. But the modification I suggested would at least preserve our current level of safety, with little or no loss of airspace flexibility, and would bring matters into line with ICAO - which may be of little concern to controllers working their 'patch' but it is certainly important for pilots who would rather not have to learn and apply dozens of differing national procedures. The 2 F-15s that crashed into Ben Macdui in 2001 did so, at least partially, because their American pilots did not understand the nuances of terrain avoidance responsibility under UK ATSOCAS at the time. You can argue that they should have understood but neverthless regulatory alignment is a desirable objective in an environment which has no physical boundaries. SERA is a good thing from this perspective and if we can align to it (and ICAO wherever possible) without losing anything then I think we should.

I take on board all the comments about cost. The trouble is, in good old British fashion, we simply make do with what we have; provision of ATSOCAS is one of the first things to go when ATC capacity becomes stretched and this is far from ideal for a service which underpins the safety of our current operations. With a Class E layer there would be a defined requirement for ATS, and if this was not adequately funded, the beancounters could be held accountable. Accountability has a funny habit of freeing up resource.

[bookworm]

That is a constructive answer Easy Street, but there are two aspects of it that I take issue with:

Our good IMC mid-air safety record is largely based on the application of airmanship and UK-only ATSOCAS; it's the pilot's choice whether to get a radar service for IFR in class G and thankfully it seems to have worked over the years.

I don't agree. Collision risk is based on the product of two probabilities:

(A) the probability of an aircraft being on conflicting (i.e. colliding) trajectory with another
x
(B) the probability of the crew not being able to resolve the conflict in time to avoid collision

Generally, pilots vastly overestimate A and underestimate B in perfect VMC.

The human sensory system is not well suited to aircraft collision detection. As a result, the difference between B in VMC and B in IMC, particularly with the help of electronic aids such as TCAS that do not care about flight conditions, is much less than one might naively expect.

As a consequence, collision risk is dominated by A. Which is why for practical purposes all collisions occur in VMC, because the traffic density in VMC tends to be higher than in IMC. In VMC, there is no practical difference between class E airspace and class G airspace at the levels we're discussing.

So what you're doing is encouraging us to spend money and resource on a risk that is theoretical, when we should be spending it on practical measures to avoid collisions in VMC.

No matter how good the safety record in Class G IFR, the fact is that the UK's approach to it is practically unique and non-compliant with ICAO and SERA.

Not so. ICAO and SERA permits IFR in class G, and states like Germany and Switzerland that have previously prohibited it are now trying to work out how to adapt their rules appropriately.

Your comment on ATSOCAS and the "nuances of terrain avoidance responsibility" is a very good one. However, it is not limited to the UK. Here's an example of a UK pilot in France who presumably thought that an instruction from ATC was terrain-safe. Unambiguous responsibility for terrain avoidance is an important issue, and more attention should be given to it generally. But it doesn't require us to make all airspace controlled. Since Ben Macdui, UK ATSOCAS has been revised to make the division of responsibilities very clear, in phraseology as well as regulation.

[Jim59]

The 2 F-15s that crashed into Ben Macdui in 2001 did so, at least partially, because their American pilots did not understand the nuances of terrain avoidance responsibility under UK ATSOCAS at the time. You can argue that they should have understood but neverthless regulatory alignment is a desirable objective in an environment which has no physical boundaries.

The military are not operating under ICAO or ANO regulation so this is not a good argument.

[Jim59]

The bit where the UK is unusual, if not unique, is that it provides ATC (call it something else if you want, but it amounts to much the same) to IFR flights outside CAS.

C stands for CONTROL. Outside controlled airspace, with the exception of ATZs the service provided is an INFORMATION service.

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by LookingForAJob

Originally Posted by bookworm

Originally Posted by Easy Street

No matter how good the safety record in Class G IFR, the fact is that the UK's approach to it is practically unique and non-compliant with ICAO and SERA.

Not so. ICAO and SERA permits IFR in class G, and states like Germany and Switzerland that have previously prohibited it are now trying to work out how to adapt their rules appropriately.

The bit where the UK is unusual, if not unique, is that it provides ATC (call it something else if you want, but it amounts to much the same) to IFR flights outside CAS.

Thanks LookingForAJob, that was exactly what I was getting at. I know that IFR in Class G is allowed under ICAO and SERA, it's the provision of ATS that is inconsistent (with the rest of the world, if not the letter of the law).

Originally Posted by Jim59

The military are not operating under ICAO or ANO regulation

Since I am a current military pilot I know this very well. What you may not know is this, from MAA Regulatory Policy:

The authority to operate and regulate registered UK military aircraft is vested in the Secretary of State [for Defence]. Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of provisions of the ANO do not apply to military aircraft, the Crown could be liable in common law if it were to operate its aircraft negligently, and cause injury or damage to property. SofS’ instruction to Defence is that where it can rely on exemptions or derogations from either domestic or international law, it is to introduce standards and management arrangements that produce outcomes that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.

In the majority of cases, including provision of ATSOCAS, the military regulations comply with this directive by repeating civil legislation verbatim or by directing compliance with specific sections of the ANO and/or ICAO. Therefore the military has a direct interest in civil regulations (which is a good job, too, because we share airspace and controllers!) and I consider it entirely valid for the military to support regulatory alignment - after all we are sometimes pressed into action across borders with little time for AIP study!

Originally Posted by LookingForAJob

we (the UK, and all other EU member States) have no choice and no opt out unless it is specifically written into the legislation.

I am aware of this point and it was pretty much what prompted me to post. It seems to me that the CAA's approach to SERA has been to do the bare minimum needed to make the UK regulations compliant (probable loss of the quadrantal cruising levels being a good example), whereas an alternative approach could have been to proactively align procedures in the interests of Europe-wide consistency. As the tone of my opening post suggested, I would rather have treated SERA as an opportunity than a threat.

[bookworm]

How precisely do you see current UK ATSOCAS as inconsistent with SERA?

[Easy Street]

How precisely do you see current UK ATSOCAS as inconsistent with SERA?

Thank you for using the word 'inconsistent' rather than 'non-compliant' because it prompted me to review my previous post and I realised I had made a couple of errors - to be corrected shortly.

I know the CAA defines ATSOCAS as FISs and considers them compliant with SERA for use in Class G. However the services offered under the ATSOCAS banner are inconsistent (to a significant degree) with provision of FIS elsewhere in the EU, not to mention the rest of the world. So how do UK ATSOCAS fit into SERA? If you view SERA as an exercise in compliance, they fit. If you view SERA as an exercise in consistency and removal of national differences, they don't.

[chevvron]

As I've said on other threads, I tried to introduce 'compliance with ICAO Doc 4444 para 8.11' at a workshop prior to the introduction of the present UK ATSOCAs but those in authority didn't appear to know this existed.

[radar707]

Having worked Class E airspace in the UK I have to say it is awful, a known / unknown environment providing a Radar Control Service to IFR traffic and having to avoid unknown VFR traffic (with every legitimate right to be there), I'd rather have Class D with a higher base for my IFR or Class G with the relevant service I am ABLE to provide at that time.

[soaringhigh650]

bookworm,

Could you point me at the last mid-air collision in the UK that occurred in cloud please?

Must there be a mid-air collision in the UK in IMC in order to form the basis for establishing Class E airspace?

There must be reasons in Germany, France, USA, etc. for doing so. Presumably there have been mid-air collisions as well.

This is about adopting international best procedures and practices. It is not limited to mandating radio in IMC, but a number of other things such as defiining which sector provides services in an organized manner outside the terminal area, instead of a mash up of dis-jointed services.

Or do you just sit and wait until there is a mid-air in IMC and then look at the problem again?

[eglnyt]

There must be reasons in Germany, France, USA, etc. for doing so. Presumably there have been mid-air collisions as well.

Not necessarily collisions. The UK system has grown about through a complex set of circumstances. Other countries will have equally complex stories but different influences ending in a different result.

This is about adopting international best procedures and practices.

Anybody who has ever been involved in any International working group to develop standards such as ICAO, ISO or ITU will tell you that the one thing theses standards aren't is "best". Inevitably the result is a poor compromise brought about by the conflicting interests of all those involved.

[bookworm]

Must there be a mid-air collision in the UK in IMC in order to form the basis for establishing Class E airspace?

No, we could perceive a theoretical risk, ignore 50 years of evidence as to the level of risk,
put in place expensive measures to mitigate the insignificant risk and then look on while safety suffered in other areas because we had wasted resources. But I doubt we'd get a good grade in a modern safety management course for doing so.

There must be reasons in Germany, France, USA, etc. for doing so. Presumably there have been mid-air collisions as well.

Indeed, the idea that you need ATC in IMC but don't need it in VMC is extremely seductive. It assumes the efficacy of see-and-avoid as an effective mechanism of collision avoidance in VMC. And in the 1950s, when the airspace systems in various states were devised, it was probably more easily justified. And it's hard to break those old orthodoxies, isn't it?

This is about adopting international best procedures and practices.

Indeed it is. :-)

Or do you just sit and wait until there is a mid-air in IMC and then look at the problem again?

And how many mid-air collisions in class E in VMC in other states do I watch in the mean time?

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by radar707

Having worked Class E airspace in the UK I have to say it is awful, a known / unknown environment providing a Radar Control Service to IFR traffic and having to avoid unknown VFR traffic (with every legitimate right to be there),

This is a good example of how UK ATC occasionally seems to 'upgrade' controlled airspace and thereby remove the flexibility that should be available in the 'lower' classes of CAS such as D and E. I suspect that similar mis-application of IFR-VFR separation criteria in Class D zones is what makes life so difficult for GA pilots trying to get across some CTZs and sets much of the UK airspace user community against the introduction of CAS. It would be simpler if such zones were defined as Class B - at least it would make the position clear to everyone!

ICAO does not mandate the provision of separation between IFR and VFR traffic in Class E airspace. In Class E one can assume that all 'unknown' contacts must be in VMC, and hence ICAO considers that safety is maintained purely by the passing of traffic information. In contrast, while providing a Deconfliction Service to IFR traffic in Class G (which is what happens in the approach patterns at numerous UK airports), one has to assume that all 'unknown' contacts are in IMC and CAP774 says you will provide (advisory) vectors against them. This is actually a significant escalation in ATC workload against baseline ICAO, as you would not be legally required to provide such vectors even in Class D airspace!

In Class E airspace, ATC is accountable only for IFR-IFR separation, and is required to provide traffic information only as far as is practicable. The legal difference between this situation and the extant ATSOCAS in Class G is the transfer of collision avoidance responsibility from pilots to ATC in the specific case of 2 participating IFR aircraft. If one of the aircraft is non-participating then a collision would (in raw legal terms) be a failure of see-and-avoid in VMC, or negligent failure to obtain IFR clearance by the non-participating aircraft. So despite concerns about resourcing, the practical effect of Class E in legal terms is merely to force ATC to take ultimate responsibility for deconflicting its participating IFR traffic. I don't see that as particularly unreasonable.

If the CAA considered that provision of traffic information (alone) for IFR-VFR conflictions in Classes D and E is sub-optimal in view of the limitations of 'see and avoid', it could apply a national difference to ICAO that says something to the effect 'where practicable, IFR traffic will receive advisory deconfliction vectors against unknown or VFR contacts'. This would have the same legal and practical result as Deconfliction Service in Class G, but the core of the service provision would align with ICAO and be much more readily understood by the international user community.

Originally Posted by radar707

I'd rather have Class D with a higher base for my IFR or Class G with the relevant service I am ABLE to provide at that time.

As indicated above, in Class E you are only mandated to separate your participating IFR traffic. If you become saturated with this task, how exactly would the ability to downgrade the service (which is what I think you like about Class G) help matters? The only benefit I can think of is that it removes responsibility for the ensuing potential collision from ATC, which in turn allows the beancounters to get away with under-resourcing, all the while allowing the buck to stop with the pilot!

Anybody who has ever been involved in any International working group to develop standards such as ICAO, ISO or ITU will tell you that the one thing theses standards aren't is "best".

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they should be ignored. National procedures should build upon the international standards as a common baseline, even where the end result is somewhat divergent. A good example is how the US tweaks the ICAO requirements for VFR clearances in classes C and D, which in a few lines of AIP text brings them to a position where they can implement extensive CAS without significantly impeding VFR operations, whilst providing total clarity for the IFR pilot. Meanwhile, instead of making minor tweaks to ICAO airspace classes to suit national requirements, the UK defines swathes of Class G and then applies quasi-ICAO restrictions or recommendations (useful get-out clause, that) in the AIP. Why have this:

Originally Posted by UK AIP GEN 3 3.5.2

The more aircraft that are known to Approach Control at an aerodrome outside Controlled Airspace, the better will be the service provided and pilots are therefore strongly recommended either:
(a) To avoid flying under IFR within 10 nm radius at less than 3000 ft above an aerodrome having Approach Control; or
(b) if it is necessary to fly under IFR in such an airspace, to contact Approach Control when at least 10 minutes flying time
away and to comply with any instructions they may give.

when you could simply define a 10nm/3000' Class E zone - which would be eminently understandable to all familiar with ICAO, and would be complied with even by those foreign pilots who had not read the AIP from cover to cover !

Before someone brings up ICAO's statement that Class E is not to be used for aerodrome control zones - I struggle with the logic that moves from that position and then builds a control zone in Class G by applying quasi-Class D rules in national legislation (yes, it sounds ridiculous, but that is how we get to the ATZ, isn't it?). How would defining ATZs as Class D airspace actually change daily operations at simple VFR airfields? I am willing to be educated!

[soaringhigh650]

put in place expensive measures to mitigate the insignificant risk and then look on while safety suffered in other areas because we had wasted resources.

So you're out to advocate that the UK system is better than other countries with Class E?

Then the UK contradicts itself by having a very poor low level Class A system of airways anyway. What's the point of boxing traffic together and then working to keep them apart?

Now let's look at the charges:
1. The UK has no Class E and sits in the top two for route charges in Europe, if not the world.
2. France and Germany has Class E and is lower down that list.
3. The US has Class E moves much more air traffic at less cost than all countries in western Europe.

What would you have to say about this?

And it's hard to break those old orthodoxies, isn't it?

You do have a point about focusing controlling resources where there are know areas of high traffic density instead of meteorological conditions.

But I'd imagine SERA to tell all units to provide consistent level of services across Europe - in other words telling providers, regulators, airports, and airliners to accept withdrawal of Class E and continue flying IFR in Class G, it would be hard to sell this point.

Maybe much easier the other way around - introducing Class E or similar in the UK instead.

[eglnyt]

So you're out to advocate that the UK system is better than other countries with Class E?

Personally my only claim is that it works for us. Class E might also work for us too but there is a risk that it won't and sometimes it's better the devil you know.

The UK has no Class E and sits in the top two for route charges in Europe, if not the world.

The old causation must imply correlation argument. There are many reasons why UK route charges are higher than others but not using Class E is way down the list if it is there at all.