Yes why do we have so many airspace classifications? Why not merge B & C, leaving A as it is, then also merge D,E and F? This would reduce it to 4 classes from the present 7.

Whilst this is indeed the requirement set out in MATS Part 1 (and derived from ICAO Annex 11) it's nowadays a highly dubious procedure. Expecting the flight crew of a high-performance glass-cockpit aircraft operating in complex terminal airspace, often adhering to onerous noise abatement requirements, to adopt a 'see-and-be-seen' technique against VFR traffic is frankly, a nonesense. Add to this the fact that an AIRPROX is filed if either pilot believes his aircraft was endagered by the proximity of another (i.e. it's got nothing to do with separation) and so just because the VFR pilot felt happy with the 'miss distance' if the IFR flight crew were not, the latter will file. In the new safety-aware environment that NATS (the ATS Provider at Solent/SOU) in particular now operates, no sensible ATCO is going to risk this sort of event occurring. Guess this is simply predictable (and understandable) 'defensive controlling'.

anotherthing - just for info., the Government doesn't pay anyone for the provision of LARS. The airlines pay for it through the Eurocontrol Common Charging Scheme whereby a proportion of en-route charges gets siphoned off and handed out to ATS providers who particpate in the LARS Scheme. And the cash received doesn't in any way meet the actual costs of LARS provision which is why places such as NATS at SOU (funded by BAA), EMA, etc., can't justify doing it.

:8

Expedite08 you still don't state what transit you were refused, what was the route and height.

I don't use the solent airspace much but when I do I have always had a great service and no complaints.

Solent are not a LARS and those not entering the airspace should make use of Bournemouth Boscombe Farnbrough Plymouth Mil or use flight information.

WRONG

To save you looking up the document (location however quoted in my original answer), here is the actual wording cut and pasted - relevant word italicised

Like I said before - you have to be a Licence holder to know that, and how to use it, unlike some of the pseudo experts here who have never even seen the inside of an ATC facility.

In another place the difference between the UK and US rules and airspace structures was summarised as ' The US believes see and avoid works, the UK doesn't believe it works'.

Where I grew up and learned to fly (KHPN), handles 180k movements a year (6.5 x Solents I think) in a class D zone, about the size and shape of a MATZ, and without the ability to refuse a zone transit (i.e. operated to ICAO spec). These movements are a wide mix of traffic, but with a lot of commercial and heavy biz jet traffic.

This philosophy difference appears to drive part of the relatively higher cost/movement of ATC in the UK vs. US and the very binary airspace structure (highly controlled or 'not' controlled)

Chilli,

The applicable standard which the UK claims to conform to is ICAO Annex 11. If the MATS 1 does not reflect that internationally agreed requirement then it is up to the UK to either change the MATS 1 or publish a difference.

To use your argument, controllers could impose an ATC service in classs G airspace. i.e. it is above the minimum service!

The same argument whould also permit a pilot to demand a higher level of service than FIS in class G airspace.

Annex 11 gives a clear requirement for the country to select an appropriate class or classes of airspace to suit their needs and then provide the services appropriate to that class of airspace.

Thus while I would agree ATC could offer to provide a level of service that is higher than the standards required for a particular class of airspace (and as a controller working with only an ATZ and class G, you no doubt do on a daily basis), a pilot can decline the offer. At the same time, pilots can (and often do) request a higher level of service than the class of airspace requires to be provided and ATC are entitled to say it is not available or to provide it as they think appropriate.

----------

mm_flynn,

You don't have to go that far away.

France has class E for much of the lower airspace including airways, cta's and ctr's. The controllers there do not feel the need to control VFR flights on the airways who are talking to them just because they have IFR traffic.

Ireland on the other hand has taken a slightly different line and everything is class C. However, they at least have told everyone that they will (and do) separate VFR from IFR in controlled airspace.

Regards,

DFC

No, ICAO spec class D requires an ATC clearance to cross, it's the US that differs on that one.

No - to use my argument a higher service can be offered (and is). Nobody said impose - you on the other state that the service statement for the different classes of airspace is an absolute - which is where your incorrect understanding of airspace policy comes from

And a RAS is.......................................? (But many thanks for agreeing with me ;) )

I think the phrase you're looking for is "I was wrong" (come on, you can admit it - honest, it don't hurt).

Sorry - you must have me confused with somebody else :)

So you are agreeing - no problems ;)

I stand corrected

SAM ATC and Class D
 

Never had a problem with Solent, always professional and friendly Class D is there for the protection of their planes ok when they are busy you accept thats the way it is and go around as Ive done before. If your maybe unsure of this in the air then always make up a back up plan before you fly. Im off to Channels Isles shortly my route encompasses Class D and Danger Areas where I may have probs so I think right how can I plan if things dont go my way and come up with plan B or C if required. A recent GA i talked to was in an active Salisbury Danger area and he didnt seem to comprehend the problem or another chap who thought he could plough thru them! How do these guys brief, or is it the GPS line from A to B? Support Chilli Monster in his words of wisdom about ATC services, well explained.

Not something that can be demanded only requested and flying within 30nm of a LARS unit does not in any way guarantee availability even when IFR and IMC.

Thus the services available depend almost on the time since last blue moon and not on any recognised system that one can use to plan.

However, getting back to Class D, you have not commented on my statement that;

Traffic avoidance is not the same as separation. Do you agree?

If so then you will see that if an IFR flight requests traffic avoidance against a VFR there is no requirement to provide standard IFR-IFR separation.

If you think that avoidance and separation are the same can you please pass on the laid down separation standards for weather avoidance :)

---------

I have been in and out of EGHI plenty of times and can say that when it gets busy (airways inbounds not split off), the main reason is that there are lots of VFR flights calling for FIS who are not going anywhere near the airspace and who unfortunately are not immediately told "FIS available from London on 124.75".

Don't call us we will call you or the never ending standby is poor practice. It makes what is normally an excellent service appear poor.

Regards,

DFC

What, in the UK, is traffic avoidance? I have never heard of such terminology. Its 5NM (or 3NM dependant on what your unit is authorised to provide), which is what we ATC folks refer to as 'Standard Separation'. There is, in ATC, no difference between IFR/VFR VFR/IFR separation, its all 'standard', ie 3 or 5NM dependant on your unit.
No such thing in UK for ATC as 'weather avoidance'. Other than pilots asking for a reroute to avoid weather (obviously).

BD

No.
Nobody said there was. If you avoid traffic, you must, by definition, separate (i.e - stop them banging together). It matters not that you do not achieve standard separation, you have just achieved some form of separation.

Whatever the captain of the aircraft asks for ;)

There's a big difference between reality and idealistic theory - Let's just leave it that I work in a world of reality, you live in a world of idealistic theory.

Hmm...sound familiar?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233411

Still would be interesting to find out what routes/routeing are being refused or granted..........

I have a friend who was refused clearance to route via SAM despite being IFR on a flight plan. He assures me this is not allowed, and he should know. It also suggests that some of the advice here would not be enough. A flight plan warns them you're coming, but doesn't give them extra controllers (I am informed, fairly reliably, that this is a problem at Solent).

Had he been a recently-qualified IMC pilot rather than an IMC instructor (nothing in the flight plan indicated his qualification, the type was a light single on the registration not a callsign) he might have had some difficulty routing in IMC unexpectedly around what is complicated airspace, with the proximity of Odiham and Wallop plus Bournemouth, danger areas and some HIRTAs and the lack of RNAV on the aircraft.

Having said that I have never had a problem with Solent, and was welcomed in as a professional GA pilot when I went to EGHI.

I think the inconsistencies in service can sometimes come down to which controller is on. I fly with Solent Flight and when we used to be at Southampton there were some controllers who would orchestrate things superbly, slipping us GA in between the bigger boys, whilst other controllers would leave you orbiting for ages because they have an aircraft on 10 mile final. Perhaps they have been bitten in the past and they are now over cautious.

One particular controller at Solent is extremely helpful and I think rather amusing. I'm told he holds a PPL/IR which probably goes some way to explain why he's so helpful, Simon keep up the good work!:D

SW