refusing access to class D airspace?!?
 

Having just read the latest GATCO magazine (yes I really did read it), I have to comment on the article about clearance to enter controlled airspace.

Apparently the General Avaiation Safety Council and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association feel that a properly announced R/T request for crossing clearance should not be refused on such grounds as "unit working to capacity".

What is pertinent is not how 'properly announced' the R/T is, but the workload of the controller.

Surely if a unit/ATCO is working to capacity then this is perfectly acceptable grounds to refuse entry into their airspace or to offer a service beyond their means. I have spent a long time working very busy class D airspace, and I can assure pilots that we do not refuse crossing clearances. radar services etc... on the grounds that we can't be bothered. Many of my colleagues fly themselves and go out of their way to assist GA traffic. If we refuse clearance then we are genuinely too busy to cope with it and/or feel it is not safe at that time.

The article also states that checking up on class D units is not an initiative to 'pillory' controllers but it damn well feels like it. Whether we like it or not, things have changed and become busier and we are unable to accommodate everything we once could. If we are in danger of becoming overloaded and feel that we are unable to take on another joiner/crosser at that present time then pilots must understand that in the interests of safety.

I feel it would be foolish to offer a service to a pilot and then find myself unable to provide it. There is a often a lot of coordination required to get someone across CAS which is time consuming, and our priority does remain IFR passenger carrying aircraft.

Whinge over.

If a unit is already working to capacity, then further IFR aircraft would be refused a slot or placed in to a holding pattern and, ergo, a clearance to enter is being 'refused' temporarily.

VFR traffic should be no different in this respect.

I guess the slippery slope is that Class D airfield units might have to start declaring their capacities and regulating to the capacity number. The En Route sectors whose airspace is Class D already do so through the CFMU.

This may lead to VFR traffic having to get PPR from the operator to find out if the capacity is predicted to exist for their flight, or having to get Flight Plans in to the CFMU system so that they can be included in any airspace counts.

But if it's what AOPA, etc, want, then they will have to put up with the system beaurocracies that the rest of the aviation world operating in busy airspace already have to.

Why?

could it be because ATC at a unit is largely funded by the IFR passenger carrying aircraft?

simple economics dear boy!!

now, if you want to contribute for receiving a service please send all cheques to me!

;)

But what service?

As far as I can recall it is just a 'known traffic environment'. VFR traffic is still responsbile for its own separation and the only 'service' would be if or when your IFR and VFR traffic could conflict - which is a pretty small area of most Class D space.


The French (and many others) deal with this by allowing VFR traffic to freely transit their CAS, often with published routings which are in many cases very close to or even across major airports.

That does not happen in the UK and is perhaps the crux of the issue. Most ATC units seem to want to give a full traffic service - when frankly most of the time it is not needed. But the emphasis is still there.

Stand back and wait for fireworks???

Fireworks indeed.....or just a bait!

The service is me talking to you and listening to life stories stepping on my Cat A or IFR traffic.

The service is me giving traffic info to you and the IFR arrival or outbound (who may ask for avoiding action)

The service is you having to hold - me co-ordinate with the tower - tower to work you across the field and me getting you back.

The service is me and my colleagues often busting a gut to get you across our zones so that you may see the sights or save 5 minutes flying time.

I agree that at some zones "cleared lanes" are a good idea but not in every case. I am guessing here but they probably don't have such small zones as we do in the SE of the UK.

Oh - and for what it's worth I don't know anyone who won't give a transit if the traffic conditions dictate it is possible.

We are not here to delay anyone - but PPL's flying VFR often forget that they are at the bottom of the food chain. (Apart from gliders of course!!!! :))

Rant over - your turn.................

So let me get this straight... The CAA delegates management of a particular piece of the UK's airspace to a particular ATS provider for the ATS provider to commerically exploit the airspace and maximise its revenues? Is that right?

If that's the case, why doesn't the ATS provider simply have a policy of refusing access to its demise to those who don't pay, just like you might see 'Private property -- No trespassing' signs around a commercial property?

I agree with you AlanM,

what is often unseen by Pilots is the amount of coordination required for what would appear a simple zone transit, we do our very best to accomodate you , we are not in the business of delaying you or rerouting you for our pleasure.

Yesterday Iwould have appeared very much like a Swan , graceful on top but paddling like no ones business underneath just to keep going.

IN a nutshell... YES!

As the airspace was "given" as you say to a unit for the purpose of getting PUBLIC TRANSPORT FLIGHTS safely into the airways system, yes, it is they who have priority!!!

I won't bother quoting my MATS pt 2 but at the front it details priority of flights. Yes - you guessed it - VFR transits isn't at the top!!

If you feel you don't access to any Class D and THAT IS UNFAIR you should take it the units management and/or DAP.

For what it's worth the SRG man who sat in with me mentioned not giving too many zone transits when you are busy wth other things. Other things being a multitude of stuff.......but not VFR FIS'ers!

It is far easier to work a constant stream of IFR ins and outs than a few IFR's and a load of zone transits I can assure you.

Sorry - that's just the way it is.

Bookworm

Flight priorities are dictated to us ,the MATS part 1 tells us how we deal with different categories of flight.

Normally requests for clearances shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received and issued in accordance to the traffic situation
When two or more flights of different categories request clearance the flight with the highest priority shall be dealt with first.

IFR scheduled flights which have filed a flight plan have a higher category of flight than VFR aircraft.

Are you seriously saying that we should delay passenger flights just so that you can transit the zone?

Mmmmm - delay a few hundred pax just so you can route in a direct line? Am I to give an inbound extra track miles to facilitate yr desire to enter CAS on a jolly? I am sure the airlines will be greatful for burning £100's if not £1000's of more fuel to keep you happy.

We do what we can fella, but as said you just have to accept it and dry your eyes!:suspect:

get with the :mad: plot

and yes - I do fly

I think we are beginning to see why there is a problem!

ATC who 'own' the airspace and must regulate everything that happens within it. (Yes I know about the rules, my point is about the mindset). Zones which are considered 'small' (well they have to be otherwise in the SE there would just be one!).

And yet I can meander down the Manchester low level corridor with none of that happening. And that works (granted it would help if it were a bit wider and higher! and most of that class D is very empty).

Corridors work because they do not require you to do all the things you call 'service' and because of which you refuse entry into CAS.

As far as VFR traffic is concerned CAS should be patterned much more like a MATZ than the present vast expanses, through which virtually none of your IFR traffic actually flies. (I'm thinking here about less than 3000').

I'm not trying to pick a fight or goad anyone, but the whole concept that public access to huge chunks of airspace is governed by whether the people accessing that space pay for a 'service' is one which is by international laws illegal. There is a right of free navigation. Now if the 'service provider' puts restrictions on the access and the people who work for them keep on using the 'safety' argument do not be surprised when there is some pushback.

In the SE and other places transiting CAS is difficult. Controller workload is certainly a big issue and one which is usually sighted, but there seem to be no initatives to adapt procedures and arrangements, it's just the 'we're big, you're small' argument. If VFR traffic start logging Class D transit refusals then the size of the issue can be seen. Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of ATC by asking questions. So I'll keep the devil icon for now... :)

I can't find any reference to priorities for normal flights in MATS Pt 1 (mentioned by flower). I don't have a Pt 2 to hand (or to mouse), but I'm quite happy to believe that the details are there. You could help me by quoting chapter and verse please, if it's the LATCC Pt 2 you're refering to.

I've made my own views on the practical side of access to Class D clear in a number of threads, and if my experience is typical then I think ATC has little to fear from GASCo's survey.

What is important to me is the basis for the prioritisation that is applied as it goes to the heart of the regulator-provider relationship that has been in place since the NATS privatisation, as well as the mandates of ATS providers elsewhere.

The priorities of flight are a direct quote from MATS part 1, word for word.

VFR flights come beneath Normal flights thus a lower priority.

Comments about not using all the airspace available seem a little strange, Quite frankly in my limited piece of CAS I use every bit of CAS available at various times throughout my duties.

Again I do not limit zone transits and anyone who has flown whilst I have been on radar can confirm that , I may ask for an alterration of track or level and have a few times asked for orbits, but it is a very long time since i have refused zone transit and then I believe it was because I had an emergency situation at the time.

To those who feel we deliberatley limit GA and VFR traffic for commercial reasons I say visit those units on a busy day and view what actually goes on in the Ops room.
As ATCOs we do not think in a commercial mindset we think in a safety mindset.

Safety comes First at all times

Does that mean that a VFR flight that has filed a VFR flight plan through class D has more chance of getting a class D clearance than a flight which has not filed a plan ?

Just curious.. never been refused yet..

It matters not..!

All VFR flights get through the zone (LCY/LHR for me) on an opportunity basis and subject traffic/workload. Simple as that.

Bookie..!:ok:

The MATS pt 1 talks about the priorities of flights and that they should in no way hinder IFR flights. Too busy to give a page ref but it is there!

In my MATS Pt 2, there is a list of priorities. Starting with IFR AIRWAYS inbound, then outbound, the IFR's IN from the FIR and then OUT to the FIR. I won't bore you with the full list but it goes in that manner. Then - at the bottom - are VFR flights.

We haven't even got enough staff to man all the positions ona daily basis at my unit. The SVFR position was unavailable due to staff shortage every day of last week at LHR. Who is going to pay for these staff?

Please don't say the airlines........!:sad:

As I read the Pt 1 (1.4.5.9) it offers IFR traffic no particular priority over VFR, it's training flights (and that could be IFR or VFR) that are right at the bottom of the pile. Both IFR and VFR are covered in the "normal flight" category.

What you will find in most of our Pt 2's though is a caveat that VFR traffic is not to hinder IFR. For example the TC Pt 2 for EGKK says....

"IFR/SVFR/VFR zone transit flights, non-standard flights and special flights are not to be permitted to affect the normal Gatwick operation unless they have been formally afforded a flight priority of Cat E or higher".

And that is the get out clause for all those that say they can't or won't approve transit flights or any other services requested for any reason, whether justified or not in some cases.

WF.

Normal Flights :

(1) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.

(2) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit (RTF callsign EXAM)


Category Z which falls below normal flights :

Non Standard and other Flights.

None of the above changes the fact that other countries with equally busy or busier zones manage to accomodate VFR traffic without too much trouble or denials.... why is it so difficult in the UK?

:rolleyes: :E

Pilotwolf

Why is it that we don't accept the logic of the Euro?

Why is it that we implement every EU directive to the the letter or beyond, when others don't?

Why is it that the LA basin (over 40 very active airfields and airports in a space smaller the size of Essex) can offer class C (RIS) to VFR flights and acknowledgement of the tail number on first contact is a clearance to enter?

It's because we are a special case :p

I don't blame the individual controllers, they work in the system, but there's something wrong out there,

Especially when the government send me (a EGSS resident) a booklet saying that there is loads of airspace capacity across the LTMA to support 3 new runways.

I may be wrong here but I believe the reason that the CAA are trying to find out whether or not aircraft are being refused Zone transits of Class D airspace is not about a Witch hunt but about establishing if the airspace categories are correct at a number of units.

Certainly we are all aware how much traffic levels have risen within the last 10 years and perhaps it is time that Class C airspace is introduced at certain Airfields. This of course will still mean zone transits are available by VFR aircraft but they will be under control with standard seperation against other traffic.

I'm not to sure how the GA community would react to this.

I personally like the flexibility of Class D airspace but work at a unit which is properly served by it unlike a whole host of airfields whose traffic levels have risen greatly.

I am also sure that units would like enough CAS around them to offer low level corridors to VFR transiting aircraft but we are squeezed into the minimum amount of CAS they can get away with giving us to protect our approaches and climb outs.

So number (1) must cover an abbreviated flight plan being filed by VFR traffic on the r/t. That's a normal procedure is it not?

WF.

Having read Mr. Skinner's piece in GATCO about access to transit class D airspace, I am stunned at his arrogance.He believes that by simply announcing certain details correctly ATC should allow immediate and unimpeded transit thru' said airspace!!!

DO WOT!!!?

Try that at some airfields, Mr. Skinner, and those of you sitting on the right-hand side will see a B737 approaching you at 150kts, passing through the airplane, and departing through the left-hand window.

Safety means GAPS between airplanes, Mr.S, ALL 'planes.Wether you pay a navigation charge or not.

Just a Few

I have not read Mr Skinner's article, but what you describe was achieved perfectly safely with the VFR corridor through LAX class B (A to us) airspace, which is the busiest airspace that I have ever flown in.

Your attitude, sadly, suggests a mind focused on how things cannot be achieved, rather than how they can.

We all know that UK airspace is a challenge, but posting comments like your previous unfortunately sounds arrogant, even if it was proviked by a piece that you thought was arrogant.

There seem to be a few controllers on this thread stuck in a civil service type mentality.
If a shop has too many customers, you employ more staff, not shut it at its busiest periods. You should remember that we are ALL your customers (and paying the govt tons of money through fuel duty for starters) and your job is to assist us, not moan because we're there.
If you are understaffed, what are you doing personally about it? Just waiting for an accident to happen so that you can say I told you so?

(All hard-working, non-moaning, helpfull and friendly controllers (which I accept is the majority) excused from this rant).

I have just reviewed my copy of GASCO (not GATCO) and read Mr Skinners article.

Another poster said previously

Mr Skinner said "One the one hand, General Aviation pilots cannot expect to always have unfettered access to Class D airspace having given short notice by radio call of a requirement for tranist and in circumstances where it becomes apparent that adequate pre-flight preparation may not have been carried out. On the other hand a response from the air traffic to a properly announced request for transit by a pilot should not be refused on such grounds as "Unit working to capacity"."

I thought that it was reasonable to post this quote to allow readers to make up their own mind.

My 2ps worth.... as a Controller and a Pilot.

Nobody so far has mentioned the phrase Duty of Care. Now, this may not mean anything to most GA pilots but is very much on the mind of ATCOs that ply their trade in class D (and E to G) airspace in the UK.

So what's is all about? Lets assume in an ideal world that GA is granted largely unfettered access to a Class D CTR, with appropriate traffic info and routings exactly as they want.

All well and good for a large number of well briefed, planned and executed VFR flights. Unfortunately some VFR flights are not so well thought out, or flown.

One day one of the "not so good" VFR flights enters class D, and gets it all horribly wrong and ends up very close to an Airliner with 130 souls on board. Avoiding each other is a joint responsibility, but at say 160kts and focused on the ILS the poor old B737 crew don't stand much chance of avoiding the non SSR equipped CUB wandering through the final approach track...... But hey, it's class D and it doesn't matter right? See and avoid, yeah? err No.

So, who's in the dock afterwards? You might well say that "Well, the ATCOs in the clear, he gave traffic info". Except that a barrister will not see it that way, nor will the relatives, nor will the public. They WILL see "130 people endangered for the sake of a joy ride" type headlines. And they may be right.

You see, ATCOs have a "Duty of Care" to all their charges, be they IFR or VFR, wherever they are. It may just be SAFER for the VFR flight to avoid class D airspace, due to the type of traffic in the CTR. The ATCO might just be doing you a favour.

It's already been stated that most Class D CTRs in the Uk are quite small. In my own (flying) experience routing around them doesn't add much time to my route, and the navigational challenge isn't beyond most PPLs, even me.

Oh, just one more thing. Fuel duty. As far as I'm aware NONE of the tax on AVGAS goes to the ATC providers at various class D airspaces in the UK, and the MoD picks up the tab for LARS. You get a VFR transit for FREE. ATC services are paid for by arrivals, be they IFR or VFR.

In the USA the FAA funds ATC (via the government). Airspace there is seen as a National Asset, available to all and funded accordingly (nowithstanding the latest FAA budget deficit). This isn't the case in the UK.

Well that's my 2ps worth. Feel free to disagree, argue the toss, whatever.... life's too short etc etc

Rgds BEX

I am shocked by some of what I have read here.

Trying to keep my temper. Here r some thoughts.

Pilots, please try to understand most ATCOs do their utmost to assist u.

We are employed by companies (be they airport authorities or NATS) who are subject to the same laws of commerce as any other business. Staff and facilities must be paid for. Simple economics would dictate priorities, let alone safety but let me come back to that. Understand that 50-80% of the normal daily workload for an average regional airport approach ATC unit could eaily be made up of traffic that produces no revenue for the said airport. Hmmm. Overall I could say that GA doesn't get such a bad deal after all?

Airspace. Every unit I have worked at has not had enough airspace in my view. That includes class A and D, both in the UK and abroad. From a GA viewpoint u may think that the airspace is pretty empty but from an ATCO standpoint I can assure u it is not.
It is excrutiatingly difficult to try to change airspace boundaries and I would offer my humble opinion that SAFETY is not given the weighting that it deserves. Small CTRs and CTAs increase ATCO workload, decreasing efficiency. How efficiently I am able to work has a direct impact on the services I am able to provide. There are some pilots in the GA (and Military!) community who appeal against CAS expansion who may like to consider that their interests may be better served by adopting a different view.

And the UK is not the only place with problems. Let's not adopt too much of a "grass is greener" mentality.

Access. As a keen outdoors person I have some sympathy with the GA community on this issue. Be it freedom to roam on moorland or in the sky it is the same concept of access. Safety is my paramount concern, though, as an ATCO. Please try to understand that see and be seen rules which may work very well between a couple of Cessnas are rather redundant when it comes to airliners travelling between 230-180knots (approx initial and intermediate approach speeds. Pax pay money for their seat on an aeroplane. They deserve certain levels of safety and protection. Your right to play is, rightly, of lesser importance.

As ATCOs we r increasingly thinking with a "at the subsequent court of enquiry..." mentality. Please understand that we do not wish to be doing so. It is a distraction that we must increasingly face, though. A military ATCO recently went through a court martial process lasting some considerable time that involved charges relating to the provision of a RIS. The ATCO involved in the mid air collision on the German-Swiss border is, I understand, still on manslaughter charges from both Swiss and German authorities. There have been court decisions recently in Holland that give grave cause for concern. Personal versus corporate responsibility is an issue for us. Should we make or be viewed to make a mistake, (be they of our own fault or due to human factors, technical failures, lack of infrastructure... the list is endless) it has very serious repercussions. My livelyhood, conscience and freedom are ultimately at risk every time that I am at work. I don't wish to sound melodramatic, only trying to make a point.

ATCOs are professionals. We take a pride in our work. That means trying to provide the best service that we can to everyone that we can all of the time.

If it feels to any of the GA community that ATC aren't being helpful, remember that we can feel that the reverse is true. We could all do ourselves a favour by tyring to understand the fuller picture.

At the end of the day my frustration is with those in the GA (and Military!) world who seem to have a lot of opinion but little true appreciation of modern commercial civil aviation.

BEXIL

I would regard this as being a responsible and highly reasonable judgement for instructing an aircraft to remain outside controlled airspace. I wouldn't even waste your time asking if my transponder was u/s.

Is there any ATCO out there who accepts Class D traffic without a verified squawk?

I don't see it that way. The arrivals pay for the system as it suits their businessness. Providing VFR transist is compensation to those of us who are affected by the system. I would say it's a fair trade off and personally I try to avoid class D as part of that deal, using it rarely and appreciating the benefits it gives all involved.

Eggs Petition

Thats the price you pay for owning the franchise. Commercial thinking often involves taking the bigger picture and GA/Mil are stakeholders in your business activities.

I really hope that you will consider this very rash statement and re word it.

Firstly, I do not understand the comparison between aircraft under IFR and VFR. Fast jet traffic often does operate under VFR and light aircraft often operate under IFR - the physics of the aircraft are no different, its the management of the different rules that is the issue.

See and be seen is the final safety protection in ANY type of flying and to dismiss it as being 'rather redundant' in airliners is extremely worrying, since it questions exactly what understanding you have of airmanship.

There have been many incidents over the past years where crashes have been avoided by airline pilots seeing and avoiding.

If you had said 'more challenging when flying an instrument approach' if I would have agreed with you, but' rather redundant' is way off mark.



Really.

Final....

You might well regard being non SSR equipped grounds for a refusal to enter Class D. Many of those who have raised this issue (access to Class D) are of a very different opinion.

The Reason I said non SSR equipped was to make the point that TCAS does not "see" non equipped a/c, making the task of the hypothetical B737 crew MUCH more difficult.

BUT.... just supposing the CUB has a transponder with mode C, it wanders into path of the B737 and a TCAS RA is triggered. A go- around is flown, safely, but at some expense to the PAYING Airline. This type of event could well occur regularly if unfettered access to given to all VFR flights.... end result? Demands from the PAYING airlines to turn the CTR into class A with virtually NO ACCESS to GA.

I repeat. CTRs ain't big. ATC will grant access when it is safe to do so and having taken into account all airspace users needs. Please note : It may not be safe to grant you access and the safer option FOR YOU may well be to spend perhaps 5 minutes more routing around the CTR. Or is a 5 minute saving worth the risk? Not in my, or any ATCOs, book

Rgds BEX

Final 3 Greens... how many moons are circulating your planet?
Where is it in the universe? Have u ever been to Earth?

Now, I am being childish, I know, but really: what do u expect when u seem to imply that light aircraft operating in a final approach area is simply "more challenging" for all concerned?!!!

As a passenger on a train would u be happy with children playing on the track ahead?

My points were an attempt to promote understanding. ATC objectives, roles, responsibilities etc can be difficult to convey it seems.


:mad:

PS And yes I do try to accommodate non SSR a/c as much as any other. Any request for CAS transit should be accommodated subject workload, which is subject to traffic levels and complexity, equipment and airspace limitations. Any deviation of track or refusal is for good cause. This is not a game we r playing.

Bex

I'm well aware of this and also the possibility for spurious TA/RA - for this reason I am always very careful to go to standby on the ground at airports and also to use the transponder appropriately at other times.

If you can fit non transponder traffic in your airspace safely that's fine (I'll bow to your knowledge/judgement), but whilst monitoring Essex (formerly Stansted), they regularly decline non transponder a/c and I can't argue with their logic (once telephoned them , asked politely why and had a full and reasonable explanation from an ATCo pleased that a GA pilot had called in.)

[QUOTE]Your point[QUOTE]

Please note : It may not be safe to grant you access and the safer option FOR YOU may well be to spend perhaps 5 minutes more routing around the CTR. Or is a 5 minute saving worth the risk?

[QUOTE]My point in earlier mail[QUOTE]

personally I try to avoid class D as part of that deal, using it rarely and appreciating the benefits it gives all involved



Eggs

Err - well that's not what I said actually, but now you say it, it is done safely in many areas, but LAX was the best example I experienced.

And you still haven't grasped my airmanship point, so I'll assume that you are a terranian, to quote a suitable memory from my childhood as you seem still to be in yours ;)

Perhaps a more useful question to be posed would be:

How many GA VFR pilots really are seriously disadvantaged by not being able to transit class D whenenver they wish ?

As I have said, and so far many pilots seem to agree, including Final etc, routing around Class D is not a major issue as they are quite small pieces of airspace in avation terms.

Is there REALLY an issue here? Are the MAJORITY of pilots upset? Or is it the minority with a chip on their shoulder about ATC making a big noise?

I wonder...... ;)

Rgds BEX

Final, let's not start to cast aspersions about airmanship...

As u said SEE+BE SEEN is the FINAL safety protection. There are one or two other measures that should, in CAS, be reasonably taken beforehand!

Regardless of flight rules the physics of a/c ARE very different indeed. A large jet will be travelling faster and be less manoeuverable than the usual GA type a/c. Obvious?!?:rolleyes:

A large pax carrying jet should not in my humble opinion have to worry about the continual possibilty of having to take avoiding action. The self loading freight may not be too happy about playing russian roulette any more than the professional driver!:eek:

What may seem like a large chunk of CAS to u in a Cherokee, appears far too small to accommodate modern (faster, larger) aircraft and traffic levels from my earthbound view in front of a Radar display.:hmm:

Am I correct in gleaning from this thread that VFR aircraft require 'clearance' to operate in your class D? If so, aren't you in fact operating the airspace as another class? Why not reclassify it as such?

Ferris:

Class D airspace:

Flight Rules: IFR + VFR

A/C Requirements: ATC clearance before entry. Comply with ATC instructions.

Were u thinking of Class E in which VFR flights do not require clearance?

There is no class E in UK airspace, or at least none that I know of. We could be viewed to have a slightly different mindset here in the UK in that we think in terms of "contolled" and "uncontrolled" airspace. Class E is not "controlled" from our perspective in that it is not a "controlled" environment, VFR being able to fly through at will. Here, outside of our airways,TMAs, CTAs and CTRs we generally have class G up to FL245.

Hope the sun is shining out there for u. The wx here has a different mindset too!;)

Eggs

i.e. the physics of the aircraft type do not change depending on the flight rules - obviously the physics of different aircraft are different.

Now I begin to wonder which planet you come from, since this possibility is all around us, e.g.

- airliners operating under RAS in open FIR between CAS
- 'turbulence commanded' level changes
- gliders crossing airways out of radar or radio contact
- TCAS incidents
- hot air balloons not painting and popping up in CAS
- human errors (e.g. private flights infringing without clearance, level busts)

etc etc etc

I would hope that the crew of any airliner carrying me were VERY alert to the continual possibility of taking avoiding action, even though it rarely happens.

See and avoid may be the last protection in the sequence, but to dismiss it as 'largely redundant' as you did is a very dangerous mindset to get into.

As an example, there are two engines or more on airliners and they are very reliable, so why bother learning the skills to deal with a shutdown, when the statistics prove that it is largely redundant?

Some issues are absolute, not relative and the skill of maintaing a good look out falls into the former category - it is far from being redundant.

Maybe, maybe not. What is the roll rate of a Fokker 100 compared with a 172 or PA28 .... ask a F100 driver - I was amazed at the answer. Also a jet has much higher vertical manoeuverability.

NB: a PA28RT or PA32RT will be cruising around the approach speed of many airliners. I have cruised versions both types at around 140kias.

So whilst I understand the thrust of your point and agree that we should not throw airliners all over the sky and scare the pax, you are over simplifying.

Oh dear Finals.

My point was not that the pilots of scheduled/charter airlines (most of whom I think u will find ARE flying IFR:confused: ) should not look out of the window, rather that it should not be the prime method of ensuring that there are no lumps of metal in front/below/above of them. Not a wholly unreasonable view?

RAS to IFR is a minefield of liability to ATCOs and ATS providers. CAS D (or A)is there for a reason. We wish to provide a safe operating environment. If that means, unfortunately, a GA a/c can't have exactly what he/she wants: so be it. It is in the interests of safety.

We do try our best.

A couple of corrections to the above posts:

Eggs....Class E airspace indeed exists n the UK, mainly in the big chunk of Scottish TMA around Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. (Belfast also have some).If you read the latest book of Airprox investigations, you'll see one involving a 737 and a microlight in Class E. See and be seen indeed, although this isn't always appreciated by IFR crews travelling at 250kt.

And to the PPLs who feel VRF and IFR could be integrated even closer: I am aware of several Airprox reports filed by IFR crews who felt that VFR traffic had got far too close, when in fact the VFR was visual and safely avoiding - either due to TCAS or crew interpretation, "safe separation" depends on which plane you're sitting in....

Nugding Steel

I agree with your point and GA pilots need to understand how it looks from the other side.

One of the reasons I stay away from 'big iron' comes from the experience of a radio conversation between me, Socal approach and a United 727 over LA... (something like this, can't remember the exact words, it's a few years ago)

Socal "United XXX you have Arrow traffic opposite direction, 4 miles out of 2700' for 4000'."

United XXX "United looking"

Socal "Arrow XXX you have a 727 opposite direction 4 miles, out of 9000' descending for 6000'"

F3G "Arrow XXX looking"

F3G "Arrow XX visual"

United XXX (sounding slightly concerned) "United still looking"

Socal "United XXX, traffic now at 2 miles"

Socal "Arrow XXX traffic now 2 miles"

United XXX (now sounding worried) "United not visual, still looking"

F3G "Arrow XXX visual"

United XXX (now sounding very worried "United still not in visual contact"

F3G "727 traffic now passing well overhead"

United XXX "Thank the lordy for that, guess you guys can see a 727 against the sky better than we can see a Cherokee down below"

Felt okay for me, doubt it felt great for the United crew.

However, the old system of the VFR corridor over LAX always seemed to work really well, since traffic types were not mixed and everyone knew where they stood.