Changes to Scottish airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changes to Scottish airspace
I believe the consultation period for the replacement of class F advisories by the CAA is now closed.
Does anyone know if the mooted class E airlanes (with increased conspicuity) is likely to go ahead ? (specifically on the Claff F advisory to Inerness)
Some muttering about Class E around Aberdeen, seems odd given the current class A air lanes leading into class D, anyone know what that is about ?
Does anyone know if the mooted class E airlanes (with increased conspicuity) is likely to go ahead ? (specifically on the Claff F advisory to Inerness)
Some muttering about Class E around Aberdeen, seems odd given the current class A air lanes leading into class D, anyone know what that is about ?
Last edited by airwave45; 20th Oct 2013 at 11:03.
My understanding of the Class E proposal around Aberdeen is that it stems from a limitation imposed upon ABZ ATC that means it is not allowed to vector traffic out of CAS and then back in again. Converting some of the Class F ADRs into Class E would mean that any IFR traffic arriving along the new Class E routes would then be constrained to staying inside CAS all the way, which would remove flexibility in vectoring and require increased spacing over that currently practised (because traffic arriving along the existing Class F can be vectored freely until it enters the CTR). The solution is to extend the CTR north and eastwards as Class E, which means that the IFR traffic will be able to be vectored without leaving CAS, avoiding the exit-reentry prohibition, while local VFR traffic will be able to carry on unaffected (Class E = no requirement for 2-way R/T or clearance when VFR).
It sounds like a bit of a bureaucrat's solution (why not just give ABZ ATC permission to vector out and in of CAS?) but it is the right choice of airspace class for the purpose. At the consultation meeting, some stakeholders tried variously to call for "mandatory R/T contact" for VFR traffic crossing the area, or even for "all speaking units to be treated as IFR traffic". The former proposal would result in a Class D extension in all but requirement for clearance, while the latter would either result in VFR traffic never calling up, or in the effective imposition of Class B rules, i.e. standard separation provided to VFR traffic. Seems like some will always push for bespoke local rules or seek to legislate for good airmanship - fortunately, this time, it seems like a plain, simple chunk of ICAO-compliance has been selected.
It sounds like a bit of a bureaucrat's solution (why not just give ABZ ATC permission to vector out and in of CAS?) but it is the right choice of airspace class for the purpose. At the consultation meeting, some stakeholders tried variously to call for "mandatory R/T contact" for VFR traffic crossing the area, or even for "all speaking units to be treated as IFR traffic". The former proposal would result in a Class D extension in all but requirement for clearance, while the latter would either result in VFR traffic never calling up, or in the effective imposition of Class B rules, i.e. standard separation provided to VFR traffic. Seems like some will always push for bespoke local rules or seek to legislate for good airmanship - fortunately, this time, it seems like a plain, simple chunk of ICAO-compliance has been selected.
Last edited by Easy Street; 20th Oct 2013 at 12:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a follow up / clarification request.
Assuming that the Current Class F to Inverness does go to Class E and become "Transponder Mandatory"
If I call up Inverness to inform them of my intent to cross the (as yet hypothetical) Class E airlane, have I then established communication with the ATSU and turned Class E into Class D (By now being subject to the direction of the ATCO) ?
Specifically in the case of an East to West crossing of Scotland I'd have to cross the Inverness lane, flying a glider I really don't want to have to faff excessivley whilst crossing.
Manners / Good airmanship dictates that either Scottish or Inverness should know of my intent first (it being hypothetical Class E, I don't have to ask)
Does just switching on the Transponder 10 miles out from the airlane and monitoring 122.6 make me subject to direction from the ATCO ?
Simply, will Class E just become default Class D or will it be Class G with a transponder on ? (for VFR flight)
Assuming that the Current Class F to Inverness does go to Class E and become "Transponder Mandatory"
If I call up Inverness to inform them of my intent to cross the (as yet hypothetical) Class E airlane, have I then established communication with the ATSU and turned Class E into Class D (By now being subject to the direction of the ATCO) ?
Specifically in the case of an East to West crossing of Scotland I'd have to cross the Inverness lane, flying a glider I really don't want to have to faff excessivley whilst crossing.
Manners / Good airmanship dictates that either Scottish or Inverness should know of my intent first (it being hypothetical Class E, I don't have to ask)
Does just switching on the Transponder 10 miles out from the airlane and monitoring 122.6 make me subject to direction from the ATCO ?
Simply, will Class E just become default Class D or will it be Class G with a transponder on ? (for VFR flight)
Last edited by airwave45; 21st Oct 2013 at 14:17.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't see the point of Class E airspace.
If the purpose of having controlled airspace is having a known traffic environment where, even if you aren't providing separation - as in Class D IFR v VFR, VFR v VFR - at least you are in contact with all traffic and can provide better traffic information due to the intentions of all traffic being known.
Participating IFR traffic (or VFR traffic for that matter) in Class F or G under a Deconfliction Service actually receives a superior level of service in my opinion compared to class E airspace with respect to unknown traffic as traffic information and avoiding action must be given with the intention of trying to achieve a deconfliction minima of 3000 feet or 5 nm - there is no such requirement in Class E.
There is more of a 'heads up' too for pilots as they are (or should be) told that they are leaving controlled airspace if entering Class F/G, thus making them more alert to the presence of unknown traffic.
I know of an area of Class E airspace where commercial flights pass through - day in day out - without any mention to them that they may encounter unknown VFR traffic!
Even if transponders were mandated to be carried in certain areas of Class E for VFR traffic there still isn't a requirement to provide avoiding action to IFR traffic therefore, personally, I think if Class F goes then just leave it as Class G so that IFR traffic isn't given a false sense of security and can request a Deconfliction Service to receive avoiding action on unknown traffic.
Airwave45 - To quote the UK AIP, you will be 'encouraged to contact ATC and comply with instruction', so not Class D, where a clearance and a requirement to follow ATC instructions are mandatory. How encouraged you are to comply of course is up to you (!) but at least ATC would know of your intentions.
If the purpose of having controlled airspace is having a known traffic environment where, even if you aren't providing separation - as in Class D IFR v VFR, VFR v VFR - at least you are in contact with all traffic and can provide better traffic information due to the intentions of all traffic being known.
Participating IFR traffic (or VFR traffic for that matter) in Class F or G under a Deconfliction Service actually receives a superior level of service in my opinion compared to class E airspace with respect to unknown traffic as traffic information and avoiding action must be given with the intention of trying to achieve a deconfliction minima of 3000 feet or 5 nm - there is no such requirement in Class E.
There is more of a 'heads up' too for pilots as they are (or should be) told that they are leaving controlled airspace if entering Class F/G, thus making them more alert to the presence of unknown traffic.
I know of an area of Class E airspace where commercial flights pass through - day in day out - without any mention to them that they may encounter unknown VFR traffic!
Even if transponders were mandated to be carried in certain areas of Class E for VFR traffic there still isn't a requirement to provide avoiding action to IFR traffic therefore, personally, I think if Class F goes then just leave it as Class G so that IFR traffic isn't given a false sense of security and can request a Deconfliction Service to receive avoiding action on unknown traffic.
Airwave45 - To quote the UK AIP, you will be 'encouraged to contact ATC and comply with instruction', so not Class D, where a clearance and a requirement to follow ATC instructions are mandatory. How encouraged you are to comply of course is up to you (!) but at least ATC would know of your intentions.
Last edited by Pheasant Plucker; 21st Oct 2013 at 18:35.
airwave:
There is NO requirement for you to call the ATSU before crossing a Class E airway in VFR. If you do choose to call them, you will NOT "become subject to the direction of the ATCO". They may attempt to offer deconfliction advice but this remains entirely advisory as long as you remain VFR. Of course, it would be good airmanship to comply unless there's a very good reason not to (and then it would be good airmanship to tell them). One such reason might be the need to stay VFR!
Pheasant Plucker:
The CAA are adamant that TS / DS are NOT air traffic control services, but merely flight information services. This is the convenient form of words used to explain their provision outside CAS, where FIS is the only service permissible under ICAO. Class E falls into a tricky area because it is defined as controlled airspace, even though it is effectively only controlled airspace for IFR traffic. Therefore it falls foul of the CAP493 diktat that the only radar service that can be provided in controlled airspace is Radar Control. I think it would be helpful if this could be modified to recognise the uncontrolled nature of VFR Class E operations, and allow TS/DS to be provided to VFR traffic in Class E.
There is nothing in ICAO or CAP493 that explicitly prevents controllers attempting to keep IFR traffic separated from unknown VFR contacts in Class E. It isn't required, but to anyone who says "you shouldn't be providing separation where ICAO doesn't mandate it" I point you to UK Class G in general. Perhaps the CAA might consider introducing a means by which advisory vectors can be given (for avoiding VFR traffic) whilst staying under Radar Control (for the mandated IFR-IFR separation).
What's the point of Class E, then?
The 5nm / 3000ft separation sought under DS reflects the fact that one or both of the contacts could be IMC. Essentially, it seeks to apply ICAO Class B separation rules (all traffic from all other traffic) on a "best effort" basis in a Class G uncontrolled traffic environment. It's no wonder that the GA community is becoming a bit wary of ATSOCAS when they're described that way. At least with Class E rules you know that unknown traffic must be VMC, and therefore has half a chance of being avoided visually. If some form of advisory service could be introduced for Class E VFR traffic, there could be a case for the radar separation minimum to be reduced to (say) 3nm or even 1nm in recognition of this fact, which would encourage GA participation by reducing the extent of vectoring.
There is NO requirement for you to call the ATSU before crossing a Class E airway in VFR. If you do choose to call them, you will NOT "become subject to the direction of the ATCO". They may attempt to offer deconfliction advice but this remains entirely advisory as long as you remain VFR. Of course, it would be good airmanship to comply unless there's a very good reason not to (and then it would be good airmanship to tell them). One such reason might be the need to stay VFR!
Pheasant Plucker:
The CAA are adamant that TS / DS are NOT air traffic control services, but merely flight information services. This is the convenient form of words used to explain their provision outside CAS, where FIS is the only service permissible under ICAO. Class E falls into a tricky area because it is defined as controlled airspace, even though it is effectively only controlled airspace for IFR traffic. Therefore it falls foul of the CAP493 diktat that the only radar service that can be provided in controlled airspace is Radar Control. I think it would be helpful if this could be modified to recognise the uncontrolled nature of VFR Class E operations, and allow TS/DS to be provided to VFR traffic in Class E.
There is nothing in ICAO or CAP493 that explicitly prevents controllers attempting to keep IFR traffic separated from unknown VFR contacts in Class E. It isn't required, but to anyone who says "you shouldn't be providing separation where ICAO doesn't mandate it" I point you to UK Class G in general. Perhaps the CAA might consider introducing a means by which advisory vectors can be given (for avoiding VFR traffic) whilst staying under Radar Control (for the mandated IFR-IFR separation).
What's the point of Class E, then?
- Mandatory participation by all IFR traffic (it's voluntary in Class G, although 'strongly recommended' below 3000ft within 10nm of an IFR airfield by the UK AIP).
- More stringent VMC requirements, most notably the increase in fixed-wing minimum vis from 1500m to 5000m. This increases the chances of unknown VFR aircraft being sighted and underpins why there is no requirement for IFR-VFR separation. Traffic info can be passed on VFR traffic as per the Class E definition.
- ATC instructions mandatory for IFR traffic, and ATC legally responsible for IFR-IFR separation (pilot reponsible in Class G).
The 5nm / 3000ft separation sought under DS reflects the fact that one or both of the contacts could be IMC. Essentially, it seeks to apply ICAO Class B separation rules (all traffic from all other traffic) on a "best effort" basis in a Class G uncontrolled traffic environment. It's no wonder that the GA community is becoming a bit wary of ATSOCAS when they're described that way. At least with Class E rules you know that unknown traffic must be VMC, and therefore has half a chance of being avoided visually. If some form of advisory service could be introduced for Class E VFR traffic, there could be a case for the radar separation minimum to be reduced to (say) 3nm or even 1nm in recognition of this fact, which would encourage GA participation by reducing the extent of vectoring.
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Oct 2013 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy,
With all due respect, I suggest that you go and have a read of the CAP493! I reckon that there are several factual errors in your post above.
Regards, ADIS
With all due respect, I suggest that you go and have a read of the CAP493! I reckon that there are several factual errors in your post above.
Regards, ADIS
It was late at night! I was guilty of mixing a couple of factual statements with some opinion on how the CAA might modify service provision rules for VFR Class E traffic. Hopefully a bit clearer now.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: England
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E is no better than class G when it comes to affording protection.
You may (or may not) have VFR aircraft you are 'controlling' and they have absolutely no requirement to follow your 'instructions'.
You may (or may not) have VFR aircraft you are 'controlling' and they have absolutely no requirement to follow your 'instructions'.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E is no better than class G when it comes to affording protection.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Easy Street for your points (and corrections).
As it's late, just a few points:
I don't think that I implied or stated that TS/DS are control services as they most certainly aren't.
My post was based on the practical application of providing area services in Class D/E/F/G
You mention that VMC requirements are more stringent, well, only if you are at or below 3000 feet and at a speed of 140kts or less; above 3000 feet the requirements are identical:
At or above FL 100:
8 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;
Below FL 100:
5 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;
I agree that if Class E was to be brought in more widely that an education campaign would be required - I'd just like to know at the moment how many Belfast Aldergrove and City operators are 'heads out' as they pass through the Class E airspace in the Belfast TMA every day!
Yes, there is nothing that explicitly prevents controllers from attempting to keep IFR traffic separated from unknown VFR traffic in Class E but by the same token I'm sure there are a fair number of things that aren't explicitly prevented in CAP493 and in unit Part 2s, however, you would be going against what is explicitly stated in the UK AIP for Class E airspace which states: 'ATC separation not provided' and 'Traffic information provided on request, as far as practicable, on IFR and other known VFR flights to enable pilots to effect own traffic avoidance and integration.' And from CAP493: 'pass traffic information as far as practicable to IFR flights on VFR flights'.
I think you could be on shaky ground if you decided 'off your own bat' and contrary to these publications to step outside these service requirements by providing a higher level of service when it wasn't required (not talking about the whole 'duty of care' thing where you think a definite risk of collision exists).
This could have unforeseen consequences where you turn your IFR traffic without him/her requesting a turn to avoid VFR traffic just as the VFR traffic turns the same way. Or you are focused on trying to provide avoiding vectors for IFR against VFR traffic and neglect a conflict between IFR traffic that should be the primary focus of your attention.
Yes, I agree that the main (only) benefit of Class E is that control of IFR traffic is mandatory but, in my 20+ years experience of providing ATSOCAs, I would say that the overwhelming majority (95+%) of IFR traffic (99.99% of public transport flights) in Class G at levels that we as a unit would provide a service too does request a Deconfliction or Traffic Service and will receive traffic information and avoiding action (if DS) on those that don't (IFR or VFR, usually military). Yes, instructions aren't mandatory even under a Deconfliction Service but I think it would be very poor airmanship not to accept those instructions if they were given to provide separation against conflicting traffic.
And Mad_Jock, for those that don't want to be 'over controlled' you still have the option of having a Traffic Service, an option you wouldn't have in Class E.
Oh! Military traffic in Class E? If it's VFR then it will treat it just the same way as Class F/G and sail straight through I would imagine - why shouldn't it?
Anyway, that was longer than intended and now I'm gubbed - goodnight!
As it's late, just a few points:
I don't think that I implied or stated that TS/DS are control services as they most certainly aren't.
My post was based on the practical application of providing area services in Class D/E/F/G
You mention that VMC requirements are more stringent, well, only if you are at or below 3000 feet and at a speed of 140kts or less; above 3000 feet the requirements are identical:
At or above FL 100:
8 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;
Below FL 100:
5 km flight visibility
1500 m horizontal and 1000 ft vertical distance from cloud;
I agree that if Class E was to be brought in more widely that an education campaign would be required - I'd just like to know at the moment how many Belfast Aldergrove and City operators are 'heads out' as they pass through the Class E airspace in the Belfast TMA every day!
Yes, there is nothing that explicitly prevents controllers from attempting to keep IFR traffic separated from unknown VFR traffic in Class E but by the same token I'm sure there are a fair number of things that aren't explicitly prevented in CAP493 and in unit Part 2s, however, you would be going against what is explicitly stated in the UK AIP for Class E airspace which states: 'ATC separation not provided' and 'Traffic information provided on request, as far as practicable, on IFR and other known VFR flights to enable pilots to effect own traffic avoidance and integration.' And from CAP493: 'pass traffic information as far as practicable to IFR flights on VFR flights'.
I think you could be on shaky ground if you decided 'off your own bat' and contrary to these publications to step outside these service requirements by providing a higher level of service when it wasn't required (not talking about the whole 'duty of care' thing where you think a definite risk of collision exists).
This could have unforeseen consequences where you turn your IFR traffic without him/her requesting a turn to avoid VFR traffic just as the VFR traffic turns the same way. Or you are focused on trying to provide avoiding vectors for IFR against VFR traffic and neglect a conflict between IFR traffic that should be the primary focus of your attention.
Yes, I agree that the main (only) benefit of Class E is that control of IFR traffic is mandatory but, in my 20+ years experience of providing ATSOCAs, I would say that the overwhelming majority (95+%) of IFR traffic (99.99% of public transport flights) in Class G at levels that we as a unit would provide a service too does request a Deconfliction or Traffic Service and will receive traffic information and avoiding action (if DS) on those that don't (IFR or VFR, usually military). Yes, instructions aren't mandatory even under a Deconfliction Service but I think it would be very poor airmanship not to accept those instructions if they were given to provide separation against conflicting traffic.
And Mad_Jock, for those that don't want to be 'over controlled' you still have the option of having a Traffic Service, an option you wouldn't have in Class E.
Oh! Military traffic in Class E? If it's VFR then it will treat it just the same way as Class F/G and sail straight through I would imagine - why shouldn't it?
Anyway, that was longer than intended and now I'm gubbed - goodnight!
Last edited by Pheasant Plucker; 29th Oct 2013 at 03:13.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mate we are getting over controlled on a basic so traffic ain't going to help.
Its whole requirement to separate traffic on deconfliction service from everything which is over kill.
At least with class E VFR traffic will be able to report n sight and see and ovoid hopefully stopping some ATCO's trying to create a 10 by 15 mile sterile box on the approach.
Its whole requirement to separate traffic on deconfliction service from everything which is over kill.
At least with class E VFR traffic will be able to report n sight and see and ovoid hopefully stopping some ATCO's trying to create a 10 by 15 mile sterile box on the approach.
Last edited by mad_jock; 29th Oct 2013 at 06:15.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mad_jock - who is over controlling you on a Basic Service (and I take your point also to mean under a TS & DS too)? Is this one particular airfield or airfields or is it a large-ish area unit in the south-west?
Certainly for me and I would say the vast majority of my colleagues, the request of a Basic Service or indeed Traffic Service from a pilot comes as a bit of a relief as it drastically reduces our workload and responsibilities (though obviously not quite so much under a TS). It's certainly far easier just to say hello and goodbye to someone under a BS than to have to provide constant surveillance and traffic info/avoiding action under a DS.
I think sometimes though that some over controlling creeps in for expediency/laziness - why not give a quick heading to someone under a TS v traffic you are working under a DS rather than having to give a load of traffic info?
I think too, at my unit, due to the number of validations held whereby you can be working busy TMA or upper airspace traffic then, after half an hour break, you can find yourself on an ATSOCAs sector - it can be difficult to reign in your natural instinct to provide separation and instead adopt a more hands off approach.
While the former isn't really excusable the latter is hopefully understandable.
"Its whole requirement to separate traffic on deconfliction service from everything which is over kill".
I take your point about being vectored all over the sky under a DS (though only overkill if you hadn't requested the service and the service was imposed - which it shouldn't be) but from our point of view we can't simply ignore primary contacts - despite the majority of them being wind farms these days - as it's a requirement of the service. If you would prefer to 'see and avoid' why don't you just simply request a Traffic Service? If you then can't see the traffic you can always upgrade and request vectors. Under a TS, if 2 IFR aircraft are in conflict, an agreement can be reached between them to remain or change levels - these levels shouldn't then be changed without notifying ATC thus building in some separation.
You say that at least with Class E VFR traffic will be able to report n sight and see and avoid - what is that in comparison too? You can do this already in Class G!
As for Class E though, as Easy Street has mentioned, if it was stipulated that avoiding action may be given to IFR traffic against VFR traffic then I wouldn't have any objection.
Certainly for me and I would say the vast majority of my colleagues, the request of a Basic Service or indeed Traffic Service from a pilot comes as a bit of a relief as it drastically reduces our workload and responsibilities (though obviously not quite so much under a TS). It's certainly far easier just to say hello and goodbye to someone under a BS than to have to provide constant surveillance and traffic info/avoiding action under a DS.
I think sometimes though that some over controlling creeps in for expediency/laziness - why not give a quick heading to someone under a TS v traffic you are working under a DS rather than having to give a load of traffic info?
I think too, at my unit, due to the number of validations held whereby you can be working busy TMA or upper airspace traffic then, after half an hour break, you can find yourself on an ATSOCAs sector - it can be difficult to reign in your natural instinct to provide separation and instead adopt a more hands off approach.
While the former isn't really excusable the latter is hopefully understandable.
"Its whole requirement to separate traffic on deconfliction service from everything which is over kill".
I take your point about being vectored all over the sky under a DS (though only overkill if you hadn't requested the service and the service was imposed - which it shouldn't be) but from our point of view we can't simply ignore primary contacts - despite the majority of them being wind farms these days - as it's a requirement of the service. If you would prefer to 'see and avoid' why don't you just simply request a Traffic Service? If you then can't see the traffic you can always upgrade and request vectors. Under a TS, if 2 IFR aircraft are in conflict, an agreement can be reached between them to remain or change levels - these levels shouldn't then be changed without notifying ATC thus building in some separation.
You say that at least with Class E VFR traffic will be able to report n sight and see and avoid - what is that in comparison too? You can do this already in Class G!
As for Class E though, as Easy Street has mentioned, if it was stipulated that avoiding action may be given to IFR traffic against VFR traffic then I wouldn't have any objection.
Last edited by Pheasant Plucker; 29th Oct 2013 at 15:33.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheasant Plucker.....you make some good sensible points...Don't worry about Mad Jock though as he is one of the good guys who is really only happy whilst flying up the Larig Ghru at 200ft or sitting in the back of an Unheated Cub in minus plenty conditions freezing his knackers off! 
Originally Posted by Pheasant Plucker
You mention that VMC requirements are more stringent, well, only if you are at or below 3000 feet and at a speed of 140kts or less
Talking of the military, I think a very good example of the type of incident that could be avoided by sensible application of Class E airspace is a Typhoon-paraglider airprox (page 56 of this report). The paraglider pilot in question evidently had an interesting take on airmanship, flying autonomous IMC in the vicinity of a procedural approach to a busy military training airfield. He was damn lucky the Typhoon pilot spotted him and advised all other aircraft to abandon their instrument approach practices. This kind of costly interference in training would be meat and drink to someone requesting controlled airspace around a civilian aerodrome, and I wouldn't be too surprised if the military seek to establish some form of CAS around all their aerodromes if occurrences like that become regular (particularly as the military is becoming increasingly safety-conscious). A Class E zone would deny pilots the "right" to fly autonomous IMC near a busy airfield with no training, rating or equipment, which I think is a "right" that they shouldn't have anyway!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks East Street, you make good points.
I've been looking at things from an area perspective but there are clearly different problems in the vicinity of airfields below the levels that we would be providing services in.
As mentioned, I think approval (or clarification) for DS/TS against VFR traffic would be useful in Class E to provide a bridge between the services available in Class D and those in Class F/G. This would allow IFR traffic the option to 'see and avoid' or be vectored clear if requested whilst still allowing VFR traffic to do it's own thing.
FBW - Lol, aye sounds a good guy right enough, though I wasn't having a go or anything - just the way things come out when you start typing them. 200ft up the Lairig Ghru sounds good fun, perhaps not with frozen bollocks though...
I've been looking at things from an area perspective but there are clearly different problems in the vicinity of airfields below the levels that we would be providing services in.
As mentioned, I think approval (or clarification) for DS/TS against VFR traffic would be useful in Class E to provide a bridge between the services available in Class D and those in Class F/G. This would allow IFR traffic the option to 'see and avoid' or be vectored clear if requested whilst still allowing VFR traffic to do it's own thing.
FBW - Lol, aye sounds a good guy right enough, though I wasn't having a go or anything - just the way things come out when you start typing them. 200ft up the Lairig Ghru sounds good fun, perhaps not with frozen bollocks though...
