|
Class E Airspace in the UK?
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?!) |
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. |
too many pilots automatically think of CAS as an absolute no-go zone and a re-education programme would be needed. |
It does force a requirement for instrument ratings in IMC (which I think is currently true anyway since the end of the IMCR?) 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. |
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. |
Could you point me at the last mid-air collision in the UK that occurred in cloud please? 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. |
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. (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. 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. |
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 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. |
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.
Originally Posted by Jim59
The military are not operating under ICAO or ANO regulation
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.
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.
|
How precisely do you see current UK ATSOCAS as inconsistent with SERA?
|
How precisely do you see current UK ATSOCAS as inconsistent with SERA? 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. |
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.
|
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.
|
bookworm,
Could you point me at the last mid-air collision in the UK that occurred in cloud please? 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? |
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. |
Must there be a mid-air collision in the UK in IMC in order to form the basis for establishing Class E airspace? 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. This is about adopting international best procedures and practices. Or do you just sit and wait until there is a mid-air in IMC and then look at the problem again? |
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),
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.
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".
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. 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! |
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. 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? 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. |
So you're out to advocate that the UK system is better than other countries with Class E? The UK has no Class E and sits in the top two for route charges in Europe, if not the world. |
1. The UK has no Class E ........ What would you have to say about this? |
This is all very good debate....Now why don't you all use your time to respond to the consultation!
|
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 |
this consultation does not seek comment on anticipated SERA developments (see Section 7), in particular SERA Part C |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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). |
ANSPs incapable of mixing VFR with IFR?
I take it you are also campaigning for the right for pedestrians to be allowed to run across motorways on their own look out? |
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. |
From a IFR flying pilot's point of view, Class E is probably also awful, compared to ATSOCAS with Traffic / Deconfliction service.
Why?
|
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. |
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!!! |
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! |
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 ... |
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
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.