My own personal opinion, which has been well documented on other threads about this programme, is that Newcastle and Teesside are no longer part of this "significant number". For a small increase in track miles, airliners can be safely surrounded by class A/D the whole way from take-off to touchdown.

I realise that as a commercial pilot, you may be directed to follow a certain route in and out of certain airfields. This is fine, if you're happy with trundling through the VoY at military playtime. I wonder if the passengers would be happy, knowing their lives may be at risk. The airline bosses will continue to direct you to fly outside CAS until the day that an airprox becomes a mid-air collision. That will be the day when profitability will no longer be an issue. And the route will either disappear from the schedule, or the airline will charge more to cover the mileage. Which is what they could be doing now.

With respect, I don't think you were the first person to have a scare in the VoY / North Sea airspace, and I don't think you'll be the last. The military are really struggling with the volume of traffic into and out of NT/NV that wants to take a shortcut to and from the North Sea.

There's a theory about air safety, and indeed a book, called "The Tombstone Imperative". The basis of it is that the airlines will not make a radical change to procedures in order to make things safer, unless people die because of the unsafe procedures. The airspace south of Newcastle might just become a classic.

LTP

I can think of many regional airports who have little or no CAS around them, one regional airport carrying almost 4 million passengers a year has only a very small control zone and all aircraft in and out fly outside regulated airspace.
There is absolutely no way without more CAS to protect these commercial operations to the fullest extent. We offer and provide a comprehensive RAS however with a large number of fast military aircraft also flying in the vicinity it isn't always easy.
I have to say I have had very few problems with military aircraft the vast majority call us up and tell us what they are doing( we have the advantage of a UHF frequency) but when i did have problems with one and advised him we would be filing he even refused to give his registration, and when ringing his unit to say that we were appalled at his airmanship we were promptly told he was outside CAS he could do what he wanted.
It is as always the odd few who give a bad name to many, but to protect our regional airports with Class D airspace linked to the airways system , stepped to allow aircraft who do no wish or require a service would be a sensible approach IMHO

Where's that then? I can't think of any regional airport fitting that description. :8

EGPK/PIK has to rely on a class G ATZ; I've sat in the tower there, not all military pilots bother to call up as they transit through a five mile final at 1000' AGL.

Speaking from experience with your RAF, they are not the masters of "Rules of the Air". Frequent airspace and level busts when they operate on our side of the north sea.

41Sqn got a temporary grounding during a visit last winter, and my SATCO had to do a new "in-brief". The triggering violation was flight trough a class D TMA at FL100 and several Jaguars with U/S transponders. One flight allso veered out of a danger area with allmost 10 miles, straight into 2 airways. (Without talking to anyone, not even reachable on UHF/VHF guard.)

If anyone fancy a try at Norwegian, the AAIB report on the TMA bust: http://www.aaib-n.org/Rapporter%2020...rt%2038-03.htm

Lost the picture
Try a busy regional airport in the South West of England, non NATS whose passenger transport movements have gone through the roof in the last 2 years.

Jack-oh, 16Blades. (edited due to product of 2 night shifts !!)

AFAIK (willing to be corrected) there are very few Advisory Routes (Class F airspace) south of 55 Deg N, the bulk are around Scotland (GOW-BEN, GOW-STN, GOW-INS-WIK-SUM, ADN-WIK, ADN-SUM), with enough civil airliners to make it interesting - and no alternative routes to fly.

Having worked both mil+civil I can categorically say we have an excellent mil/civil liaison at ScACC controller to controller. Can't speak for the scopies though ;) - the problem is unknown traffic, speaking to no-one, or worse still wearing 'NATO autonomous@ squawks.

Jack-oh - Lossie are delegated a very small part of the ADR structure (and then only Mon-Fri), but there is quite a large world outside the 50 mile range ring and above FL115

16B - the point I am making is that frequently mil jets are maneouvring around in Class F advisory routes, and frequently civil airliners are wheeched about the sky trying to anticipate and to avoid them. And I am sure there are drawers full of airmiss reports on the subsequent melee - (and many other filled drawers...) I take your point about the Vale of York, busy place, (I worked the LARS there a few years ago). Wiltshire based crews ;-) I suspect are more aware of 'other traffic' due to the even more busy nature of Southern airspace. Some of the jets flying around Scotland may be under the impression that they are the only people in the sky .... not so. Scottish just posted it's busiest ever day/week at the end of July.

Now I am sure you would agree that while Class F airspace is not recognised by the mil, it is tempting fate to fart around in it with gay abandon. Put the boot on the other foot. MATZ around mil airfields are not legally enforcable (2nm ATZ is, but MATZ isn't). So what would be the likely reaction if Joe Bloggs drove his little Cessna right up to the ATZ edge and flew (perfectly legally) up and down the final approach with equal gay abandon ? Think he'd be criticised for unsportsmanlike conduct?

To the ATP, SF34 and E145 pilots who daily run the gauntlet. There is talk of a jet syndicate getting together at a West of Scotladn airfield. Perhaps your own interceptor to accompany you on the ADRs might be not too far away :ok:

Hugmonster

You criticism of my levels of experience suggest you take my comments personally, and they weren't directed at you but at the appearance the program gave that air traffic controllers were bordering on the cowboy and our airspace resembled wild country where passengers were at risk. I was particularly refering to the VoY area as this is not an area which MUST be crossed - which regional airport within it would you be trying to reach ? There is a great deal of military traffic both low level and transitting to the danger areas off the coast to practice refuelling etc and I had thought for the most part it they didnt cause to many problems, until I heard your story. Now I am inclined to believe that perhaps, as others have said, it is an intense milatry playground during the day and best kept clear of, particularly with a nice warm cosy airway so close. That is the lesson I have learned from your story.

Whether you reach the same conclusion is nothing to do with me, whether your airline puts pressure on you to fly a more risky route to save a few bucks is nothing to do with me. I totally agree there are some areas which require more CAS. All I said was aircraft putting passengers at risk flying through the VoY
was a subject more suited to a program on how airlines are taking unnecessary risks with passengers rather than one about ATC.

How has this thread so quickly turned into a mil vs civ punch up!!
We as Mil ATC are as professional as anybody else, we are all in the game of safety, and are all on the same side!
I for one have been saved a couple of times by the civil planners, and i am sure the feeling is mutual.
I agree that some mil pilots may have busted levels etc, as was stated earlier, have their civil brethren not also fallen foul of this?
Most, even all, mil pilots who are under an ATC service, even if RIS, will stop off or reroute to help out other aircraft, you only have to ask. Calling their airmanship into question is in my opinion a little harsh, they did'nt get their wings out of a christmas cracker.

As far as the NT/NV situation goes, (a/c routing direct from UMBEL) this is a very sensitive subject at present. The civil pilots would probably tell you the same, it is extremely hard work for both pilot and controller, the pilot is sometimes being asked to perform manoeuvres that the Red Arrows would be proud of!! It isnt an ideal situation, but until it is resolved i am afraid (as much as it pains me to say) we will all just have to cope. (as usual)

If i have totally misunderstood any of the above, i apologise, its just the way it read to me.

;)

TheRev, I think you misunderstand the point of the programme in one respect, (which HM pointed out to you) which is that, where lack of CAS exists for the service required, aircraft HAVE to go off-airways. It is not a matter of airlines "saving a few bucks". Without the use of advisory routes, of Class G airspace or whatever, there simply would not be a service. Lots of controllers and pilots would then be out of jobs, lots of the travelling public would be unable to fly from the regional airport of their choice.

This is simple economics.

It is not acceptable for the military to indulge themselves in "it's legal, so we can do it" behaviour, and it's not acceptable for the 172 driver to hang around on the extended centreline of a military runway.

It has to be accepted that we need to share airspace responsibly. We also need airspace that works for all of its users. What we have at present does not meet that criterion.

How can your CAA sit and let this situation continue? It sounds like you operate with a safetylevel common to some developing countries. Well, perhaps this is what you get when you have allmost water-tight bulkheads between the MIL/CIV control and airspace structure....... :rolleyes:

Have anyone looked at having one service for BOTH "customers", it seems a bit odd when the airspace available is so limited, and traffic levels are as high as you say?

Captain Stable in onto something......
Better duck again.....:E

Well, this is effectively what our military controllers are being asked to do, and what they are finding so difficult. Generally, a military controller will have only 3 or 4 aircraft on his frequency, but they might all be fast jets operating in completely different areas. If the controller is providing a RAS to all these a/c, he has to have eyes everywhere to prevent a loss of separation and a potential airprox.

So, as if his life isn't interesting enough, you add a couple of F50's doing 250kts, cutting a swathe through his airspace, wanting continuous descent into Newcastle. Of course, this civil traffic demands a RAS, so now he's watching a slow aircraft outside controlled airspace. There could be anything out there, and indeed there frequently is. Trying to maintain 5m/5000' against all that must be no mean feat.

The controllers at MASOR shouldn't be being asked to handle all this traffic (in the summer months, it's an awful LOT of traffic), but for one reason or another, it happens. Suffice to say it's all political.

An interesting statement, but generally a work of fiction. My previous post (6th Aug, 11:42) explains where I stand on this subject, but just to re-iterate:

If these routes are as popular as their frequency indicates, then the airlines can afford to fly along the airways and charge their passengers a bit more. If the passengers really value having an airport on their doorstep, they'll pay a bit more for the privilege of using it, instead of having to go to Manchester. Even if, horror of horrors, the route had to be suspended, I don't think any of us "would be out of jobs". The controllers would be positively delighted, especially the military ones, who would be able to get back to controlling military traffic.

I'm sure the people in power who decided on the current airspace arrangement around Newcastle, which was the result of radical changes in March of this year, would be delighted to hear you say that. The airspace as it stands is fine. It just needs certain civilian carriers to use it properly. The military need places to fly their aircraft with quite a lot of freedom, just as the airlines (should) need airways on which to fly theirs. Another airway into Newcastle would be nice for a small proportion of civilian flights, but far too restrictive for the military.

savechip55, keep up the good work. I hope the airlines appreciate it. :ok:

LTP

LostThePicture - well named! ;) :rolleyes:

You're wrong in almost every important respect.

Just about nobody (CAA, NATS, MoD, civil operators) think the airspace we have is fine. And it needs rather a lot more than just "certain civilian carriers to use it properly", although it does need that.

It also needs certain (minority) military elements to show a sense of professionalism rather than yeeeeha gungho-ism.

Basically, I get the impression that you've never seen the world from the flight deck of a regional airliner, nor have any idea of what goes on in civilian aviation except for what you see on your screen. Please confirm this is wrong? :uhoh:

The new North Sea airspace (have you flown on it yet Hugmonster?) came into being in March this year. The airspace was radically restructured because:
1) The old North Sea airspace was generating huge delays due to flow restrictions.
2) The military wanted a bigger danger area in which to fly their Typhoons, when they arrive.

Another change which occurred at about the same time was the introduction of a new class A airway, which was roughly along the lines of the old NORCA (POL-NEW) which allowed civil airliners to safely transit the Vale of York.

The airspace, as it stands now, is basically one big compromise between the CAA and the MoD. Nobody got exactly what they wanted (there wasn't enough space for that), but in the end the airspace was agreed in theory.

As far as I can see, the only people who are disgruntled with the current layout are the MoD, or more specifically, MASOR East. Why? Because they are being inundated with civilian traffic which they really should not have to be controlling. The idea was that all traffic routeing to Newcastle and Teesside from the East would go around via RIMTO and GASKO. But, for one political reason or another, the MoD agreed to give a service to NT/NV in/outbounds wanting to take the shorter route, outside CAS. Unfortunately, due to "profitability", this was EVERYONE. So, the MASOR are currently working their asses off doing our job.

I stand to be corrected, but I think more-or-less everyone in the civil world is quite pleased with the airspace. The capacity has been increased markedly and the sectors no longer cause delays. Happy airlines too, not waiting for a slot because of one inefficient sector. There have been a few teething problems on the ATC side, but that is only to be expected for such a huge change (the biggest ever to UK airspace).


This statement from a post earlier in the thread more or less says it all really. Although I chuckled, the fact is that if you are flying out there over the Vale of York or the North Sea, below FL245, you can be receiving a service from ANYONE (MASOR East, Pennine Radar, the Lord Almighty) and you're still not necessarily safe. It's class G airspace, open FIR. The pilots in there don't have to be talking to anybody, they don't even have to have a transponder. And that includes military fast jets. "Gungho-ism" doesn't come into it - they aren't breaking any rules. Flying out there in a turboprop is a very, very risky business.

To answer your final question, I take my fam. flights (when I can get them) and consider myself reasonably well informed on the subject of civil aviation. (Do you have any idea what goes on in the world of ATC?) But no, I've never been on the flight deck of a regional airliner. And if the opportunity arose tomorrow to sit in the cockpit for a flight AMS-NCL, I'd stay at home. :uhoh: :eek:

LTP

Hugmonster, I am afraid that Lost the Picture actually seems to be able to see the bigger picture and I'm not being biased. A lot of these civ airliners flying through the VoY (including big airbuses for cripes sake) should not be there. Many pilots seem to think that they are still on-route, even more haven't got a clue what we are talking about when we ask them what type of radar service they require. We impose RAS because it's the best that we can do, but they DON'T UNDERSTAND what their responsibilities are under RAS. How safe is that??? On a weekend recently I actually explained RAS to a KLM pilot over the RT because he was the only guy on freq. After a couple of minutes he said 'ohhhhh, is that how it works!' Strangely enough when I then called traffic to him he said that he was 'good VMC and happy to continue' as well he might be. There was no cloud at all, 80k's vis nil wx. Learning had taken place!:ok:

Lost the Picture :ok:
Good to see that somebody out there sees the bigger picture!
I for one thank you :ok:

Could there be a stronger reason for increasing the amount of CAS? :hmm:

c_t, you got it in one. Which is more than can be said for LTP."I'm not breaking any rules - I can do what I like here" is not an attitude that will aid flight safety. Nor will the attitude shown by the second sentence of yours that I quoted.

Is it fair to assume that you are a mil controller?

It would have been nice if the programme had at least asked for the views of a military controller. One sided comments don't give the full picture.

Because the datalink in the Pacific is FANS-based and it only works in low-density airspace.

If we could stick FANS datalink into Europe, we would have done. But core airspace here is a touch busier than it is over the ocean blue.

Think of it as inventing a round wheel instead of the square one that you're currently stuck with. ;)

Of course, we could just blanket the country in controlled airspace and prohibit the military from flying anywhere. Would that satisfy contact_tower and Hugmonster? I think that the UK military already feel terribly restricted by the amount of controlled airspace that is starting to surround them - and you want another airway - a 3rd airway - to two fairly minor regional airports? Entirely unreasonable, given the relatively tiny volume of civilian air traffic that would use it.

Hugmonster, if I may answer your final question first - No, I am not a military controller. I am a civilian who can realise that the military are getting a very raw deal as far as this little patch of airspace is concerned.

As for my first comment that you have highlighted for criticism, I can only say the following (although that I can see, given your opinion, we may have to agree to disagree): Class G airspace is not designed for you and your regional turboprops to fly through; it is free airspace. Saying "I am not breaking any rules by not talking to ATC" does not display a lack of airmanship or professionalism, it's merely an exercise of rights. The only person jeopardising air safety is you, by expecting an advisory service in airspace which should be "see and avoid". Have you any idea how difficult it would be to avoid an unknown primary return by 5nm if it popped in front of your aircraft? That is the separation minimum, and that's what you're expecting a military controller to do for you as you trundle through his airspace at 250kts.

The traffic in class G is not necessarily exclusively military; there could be other small turboprops out there, capable of speeds and altitudes similar to civil airliners, who are not talking to anyone. The military controllers at MASOR East operate from a limited number of consoles, with a limited number of staff, and can therefore handle a limited number of aircraft. There is also a limit as to how many tracks each console will accept; I don't know the exact numbers because, as I said, I am not a military controller. But suffice to say it is not a huge number, and the sectors, at this time of year, are frequently overloaded. Every time they get lumbered with a civilian track wanting a RAS into Newcastle, their capacity to handle other traffic decreases. So in a way, you are the object of your own demise.

And so to my second comment. This was merely my personal view of the route which an aircraft flying AMS-NCL would take. It was not about flight safety, it was about PERSONAL safety. I would feel deeply anxious, knowing the airspace I'd be flying through. My job is all about flight safety, so there is little need to preach to me about it. All I'm saying is, when you take that right turn direct to Newcastle, you're out of my hands. And that's not to say that military hands are any less safe. They are excellent controllers who at times are asked to do unenviable tasks, hence my praise of savechip55 and his colleagues at West Drayton. In class G airspace anything can happen, and happen very quickly. Your safety is not a foregone conclusion, no matter whose hands you're in.

LTP

If the sun comes out tomorrow then I think I'm going to go play 'fly up and down in a MATZ'....I hope the RAF controllers can speak french! :O ;)

It seems a bit odd to me that the RAF is allmost the only airforce in the world unable to fly in CAS...... You can do everything you do in G in class C/D, just just need clearence first. :E It's works here, and the fighter jocks seem quite content with the situation.

We often have F-16 on live and practice air to ground missions over Setermoen Bombing Rng, all of which are inside the class D-TMA. They talk to FAC or whoever on UHF, and with us on VHF. Works quite well actually. (Imagine, a fighter talking to a civ controller, oh wait we don't have any MIL controllers! :} )

c_t, with the best will in the world, you cannot compare the procedures in Norway with how we do it here in the UK. We have some of the busiest controlled airspace in Europe and it pays to keep civilian and military air traffic apart. Although my knowledge of Norwegian geography is not complete, if Setermoen is anywhere near Bardufoss, I doubt that the military have many civilian flights to interfere with their jaunts in controlled airspace! It would be a little different here.

And anyway, we're not talking about class D here, we're talking about a class A airway. No VFR.

I'm delighted that your air force pilots are quite content to maintain listening watches on two frequencies, while on live-firing missions in Class D airspace! For a start we have areas for doing things like that. They're called DANGER areas, for obvious reasons. Secondly, the RAF pilots would be utterly distraught at having to maintain a listening watch on a civil frequency, AND talk to each other, AND conduct an exercise. And so they should be. It would be unnecessary.

It makes a whole lot more sense to let our fast jets operate in their own airspace, completely autonomously, so that they can concentrate solely on what they're supposed to be doing (training for conflict). And when they're finished they can call up a military frequency to get vectors home through class G airspace, keeping them outside busy CAS, and off the often even busier civilian frequencies. It's the best way of doing it.

LTP

Controlled Airspace
 

Experience shows that even when there is a CAS option available it is not used. Cardiff traffic will join/leave at AMMAN rather than route via BCN; and join at ALVIN/leave to go through the FIR from near Lyneham and overhead Bristol...again to avoid routeing via BCN and remaining within the Airway system. This is compounded by the actual publication of arrival/departure routes that do not make use of CAS protection even when that option IS available. If an aircraft has an incident outside CAS when following a published procedure of this type does the relevant ATC Authority bear responsibilty and liability or is this another "washing of hands"......?

LTP, no your suggested "solution" would not make me happy. To suggest such an idiocy makes you sound very petulant. It is not a solution because it does not provide an improvement on what we have now.

No, Class G airspace is not "see and avoid". Those are the rules for VFR flight. There is a difference. You may like to look them up. While you're about it, check up the rules for flying IFR as well.

If a military jet is flying VFR in Class G airspace, the onus is on the pilot to ensure he is as well-informed as possible of other traffic using the airspace, and to see and avoid them. Failing to talk to ATC to inform himself of that, failing to use all means at his disposal to prevent accidents that may be caused by his playing with his mates is lack of professionalism.

Military controllers who refuse perfectly valid requests for information from the civilian colleagues about the likely intentions of military aircraft under their control also display similar lack of professionalism.

Civil airliners are as entitled to use Class G airspace as the driver of an FJ. At present there appears to be a singular lack of professional courtsey and responsibility about its use on the part of the military.

By your own admission airspace does not meet the needs of either the military or civilian operations.

It's time for a rethink.

All aircraft have the option of remaining inside CAS if they wish to whilst being vectored at Cardiff to do so they can route via BCN. However the requests to do so are almost unheard of. Being both vectored inbound & outbound however that requires some quite extraordinary heading changes.
Note are routes may be published but they are not SIDs and STARs which of course we cannot have because of the lack of CAS
There is a note in the published procedures it says

Part of this route lies outside Controlled airspace. Radar service may be provided by Bristol approach Control or Cardiff Approach Control as appropriate. Pilots requiring to remain within Controlled Airspace should request routing via BCN with " London Control"

Outbound the only difference is that you request the routing with Cardiff

Aircraft flying in and out of Bristol and Exeter do not have that luxury they all have to fly in unregulated airspace.

I do dislike the way this thread seems to be military against Civil. Airspace is there for all to be used and there are many units such as mine who give RAS. I have encountered maybe 2 unhelpful military pilots in my time here, maybe because we have a UHF frequency the vast majority call us up for a service . Our LARS service to is comprehensive because of our necessity to vector aircraft outside of CAS. We have very little direct communication with "D" School Yeovilton but they keep there aircraft clear of all of our civil traffic .

I am unfamiliar with the VoY scenario however surely our military aircraft have sophisticated equipment to keep them clear of transponding aircraft, or am i simply being a fool here and I'm prepared to be corrected.

All this talk about Class G is well and good, but what aboot the Class F airspace Advisory Routes ? That was the original grumble after all.

EGPFlyer - zuts alors !!:} Why not do 2.5nm DME arcs on the LUK TACAN ? :E

My suggested "solution" was not a "solution" at all. At no point did I say it was a potential solution. It was hardly petulance on my part - forgive me but it seems that this is merely the ludicrous extreme to which your argument is heading.

An interesting paragraph. Almost entirely fictional, but interesting all the same. My Manual of Air Traffic Services has the following to say about "see and avoid":

"In Class E, F and G airspace, conflicting traffic may not be known to ATC and so it is necessary for all flights to make use of the see and avoid principle."

ALL flights. Irrespective of flight rules. Aw, shucks Hugmonster, you haven't been flying through class G all these years with your eyes glued to the instruments have you? My manual also has the following to say about classifications of airspace:

Class: G
Flight Rules: IFR and VFR
Aircraft requirements: None
Minimum services by ATC Unit: None.

Which more or less backs up what I have been saying all along. There CAN be anyone in class G, and they don't have to be talking to anyone. In fact, if the military are too busy to handle your flight, they can deny you a service altogether. You could be out there all alone squawking 7000, with your eyes in the cockpit, because you're IFR. Hope you're feeling lucky.

You do have one thing correct: Yes, you do have as much right to be in class G airspace as a fast-jet, or any other aircraft for that matter. It is just extremely ill-advised to expect the same level of protection and separation in class G airspace as you would get from a civilian ATCO in class A airspace.

Even if we were to stamp out the alleged lack of professionalism which you insist is rife in military air traffic circles (it is not), you still have to avoid all the non-military traffic that may be there. Or are you immune to airmisses and collisions with GA traffic? Not with your head in the cockpit, you aren't.

I didn't actually say this either. I said that the airspace was one big compromise. Neither the MoD or the CAA got exactly what they wanted out of the deal, but they thrashed out an agreement. The airspace DOES meet the needs of a majority of users; it would meet the needs of everyone if a few penny-pinching airlines swallowed the bitter pill that is a 40-50nm increase in track mileage to their destination.

PH-UKU (interesting name), the "original grumble" stems from an incident in the documentary which is the title of this thread, which occurred in class G airspace.

Delighted to hear that you have danger areas as well :cool: , As have we in this case, just is not lage enough! (desinged in the "bombing at low level" days) The current missions at medium level require a bit more space, and they cannot stay inside END-404.

No loud screams last december during a deployment, but I guess they had to put up with it. :{

I have one sincere question: The military cannot need to occupy "all" your class G at all times, and you seem to have a lot of it. (Sitting with a Lower AS IFR map of the UK. Looks a bit tricky to get from say Newcastle to Birmingham. )

Make it CAS, and delegate it to the military WHEN they need it, and let everyone else play when they don't.

Edit: Removed childish remark :hmm: (I know UK airspace is congested, kinda mentioned that earlier):)

LTP, so long as you insist on arguing with things I have not said, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

You have no idea about how military aircraft behave in the "open" FIR, you have no idea about the economics of operating a route commercially, you have no interest in finding out the problems both military and civil aircraft encounter.

Carry on in your own little world. You have no interest in finding out the point of view of others. You are therefore part of the problem, and are incapable of being part of the solution.

Well, that's rich. I spent a good proportion of my last post defending myself against the somewhat inaccurate quotations that littered yours. If you can find an instance where I have misquoted you or taken your words out of context, I apologise.

You've now said on more than one occasion that I have no idea of regional airliner operations in class G airspace, and yet you refuse to enlighten me - isn't that what the forum is here for? I know what my ideas on the subject are, and contrary to your belief I have every interest in hearing your opinions (and anybody else's for that matter).

But it appears that I am not the only one here that needs to be educated. It is a fact that every time you venture into class G airspace you are at least partially responsible for your own separation, even if you are under a RAS. The see and avoid principle DOES apply.

You have said elsewhere in other posts that your airprox occurred in 2001 and was one of the "hairiest" you'd ever had. Did you know that arguably the most dangerous airprox in 2002 also happened just south of Newcastle, when an RJ85 and a Jaguar nearly collided? Just coincidence, or a pattern as a consequence of the whole operation being a bit questionable in the safety department? The operator of the RJ85 concerned ordered its pilots to fly the airways for a period of time after that incident. I refer you to the "Tombstone Imperative". If either of these two quite serious incidents had developed into a situation where fatalities had occurred, all civilian traffic would be flying the airways today and you know it. So why is it acceptable to take shortcuts across class G when people only nearly got killed?

One conceivable solution to the now much-loved problem would be for the area of class G airspace south of Newcastle to be available to commercial traffic during "off-route" hours. Every day, the MASOR phones the civilian sectors to inform us of the start and finish of military operations. Outside of these hours you are much less likely to come into conflict with a fast-jet, and demand on the military controller is greatly reduced. During weekday daylight hours (generally speaking when the military are most active) the civilian operators would agree to stay on route and fly the airways. Slightly less draconian than flying the airways at all times, despite the fact that in my opinion civil operators would be well advised to do so.

Hugmonster, if YOU seriously wanted to be part of the solution, you would save the petty insults and get a grip. By being so resistant to change when it is clearly inevitable, you are more a part of the problem than I will ever be.

LTP

I would like to ask the pilots and operators of comercial airliners who choose to fly outside controlled airspace when a perfectly good airways route is available (all be it with extra track miles), whether they believe they get the same level of protection outside CAS as they do inside?

If the answer to the above question is no, then it's clear that they are putting their passengers at increased risk for solely comercial reasons.

If that is the case I would also like to ask whether their passengers are informed of this increased risk prior to purchasing a ticket?

Apart from the moral implications of this, it is also a question that I'm sure their families lawyers will be asking should anything happen to them!

ltp

whilst i agree with most of what you have said on this thread there are a few points i would like to raise as a pennine controller

first minor point masor never inform us or
the other sectors at manch of the off route status
secondly the re-route after the very close shave you mentioned still involved being off route between pole hill and newcastle as the airway was not established at that time

i agree that some (most not from our shores) don't understand the service that they are getting which is not great but the vast majority that i have dealt with over the years have a healthy respect for the airsapce and are very switched on

i would never miss-call the mill controllers but they are under a different kind of pressure than we on the civil side in that the pilots seem to try too force the issue more

example mil pilot on ris when you phone for co-ordination when giving a ras and the reply is ok i will call you in not a lot of help

that was a worst case but still happened lot

must admit though the current (political) situation is not ideal by any means which london mil and ourselves both agree

just trying to help don't like too see you and hug at loggerheads
regrds maine:ok:

OK. First, as has been pointed out many times, the way CAS is laid out at present leaves several airports with little or no access to airways. In many cases, therefore, traffic using these airports has no choice but to fly outside. In many other cases, the airways do not provide coverage on many of the routes people want to fly. Ditto.

Stop looking at this as exclusively a NCL problem. Various sneering comments have been made at pilots and airlines about not wishing to accept the extra track miles.

We have a schedule to keep. If we don't keep to it, people ask questions. Even something as small as, say, a F50 takes somewhere in the region of £1500 per hour to keep in the air. An extra 33 track miles therefore puts £250 on the cost of a one-way trip. Di that eight times per day and you've lost a couple of thousand quid - or put it another way, your break-even load factor has just gone up by two pax per trip - not insignificant in a small aircraft.

Compare this with the efforts we make to tanker fuel when we can - uploading at AAA instead of BBB can save £15 per rotation. That's all. So £500 per rotation is a LOT of dosh. Compare the reported saving BA made by reducing the number of olives in a business-class salad from three to two.

Running off-airways is a risk, yes. Of course it is. Nobody doubts it. Sometimes (going into NWI or HUY for example) there is no choice in the matter.

In general, pilots on both sides of the civvie/mil divide are extremely professional. There are exceptions on both sides, however. Where these exceptions occur, people tend to tar all with the same brush. I have had conversations with mil pilots who refer to airways as "your bit of airspace" and Class G as "our bit of airspace". He quite seriously argued that civil traffic should not be permitted in Class G. I have heard military traffic refuse to move and refuse to give ATC an estimate of when they would relinquish their "box" to allow traffic to descend into NWI.

I keep myself as up-to-date on ATC matters as I can. I regularly visit my local ATC unit wherever I'm based. I try to understand from talking to them what the specific problems in the area are. I've attended ATC training days, I've played in ATC simulators. I've watched the Pennine guys and gals going throught heir paces trying to keep stuff apart. I'm trained as a Flight Safety Officer, and still have very good contacts in the military world. So you can believe me when I say I know what goes on on the other side of the mike.

Part of the perceived problem between civil and military FJ mates is that airline pilots are generally paid to be ultra-conservative and restrained. By the time they get a command, on average they are well into the second half of their working lives. In contrast, FJ drivers are much younger, and while trained to the nuts in safety, are selected for a rather more aggressive, "can-do" attitude to their work. This can result in their being perceived as gung-ho. In a very few cases, the gung-ho attitude is real. My colleagues, on the other hand, are seen often as stick-in-the-mud, get in the way, refuse to do anything they've never done before, and are slow.

What's the solution? Tolerance, professionalism, attention to other airspace users and their needs.

HM,

Your points throughout this thread have all been valid, and I (as one who [I'm pretty sure] works your company's aircraft routinely) respect your opinion.

However, reading your last post leads me to one conclusion: that if such routings are necessary in order to render such a route viable, then surely it ISN'T viable.

I disagree.

How many mid-airs have we had in the UK in any given period you could name? (As I said in the programme, sooner or later one will happen. But there is more than one way of ensuring that day is as far away as possible.)

I can't think of any. I can think of a great many near misses. Sadly, the military are responsible for far more than their fair share, but that's life.

Next, compare, say the number of CFITs in the UK, or any other accident cause.

My thesis is that our airspace can be made safe for all, that we can have a system of airspace that serves all those who have the right to be there - transit traffic, heavy jets, light regional stuff, business users, military, training traffic, microlights, gliders, ag sprayers, skydivers - the lot.

At the moment all we have is a "system" that has grown up piecemeal, developed by tinkering with it each time it became too unwieldy and useless.

thanks hug

we seem to be getting to the point of this board finally

keep talking and we can share views:cool:

i take on board you point about the ncl thing

i am from near inverness and follow the threads on these probs but

haven't been up the road to scottish on a visit for some time

thanks for the input and keep it coming
regards maine:E

Yeah, cheers HugMonster, I also appreciate the insight, and it seems we may agree on more than we think! There IS absolutely no excuse for anyone in the military to think that class G is exclusively for their use. I have yet to come across anybody on the ATC side who subscribes to this view, but as you say, some pilots may think differently. At the same time though, the ATCOs are probably starting to feel a little bit like undervalued civvies in that they handle a great deal of civilian traffic during the daytime when they should really be concentrating on looking after their own.

I also agree that there is no reason why routes to the regional airports should not be viable, whether it be NCL, HUY, NWI, MME or wherever. Eastern Airways seem to be doing quite well, and a great number of their operations need to fly outside CAS. The loss of smaller regional routes would be detrimental to us all. Pilots suffer from uncertainty over job security, passengers suffer the inconvenience of having to travel overland to get to their nearest major airport, and ATCOs suffer as more and more traffic wants to be going to the same place at the same time, making sectors more vulnerable to sudden overloads.

While you say this is not solely a NCL/MME problem, it is where most of the problems lay. Traffic into NWI and HUY tends to have fewer conflictions (military or otherwise), and as you say there is no choice other than to fly outside CAS.

As an alternative, could you not just charge (on an F50) each passenger £5 more for each sector? I know that fare pitching is a fine balancing act between having aircraft full, and operating with them half-full. I also know that ultimately the passengers will have to bear the cost of any increase in flight time. Would there be a massive loss of goodwill for £5? At the moment most of the AMS-NCL aircraft are F100's anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the potential "increased cost per passenger" would be reduced on a larger, faster aircraft? And you would only have to charge this fare when the direct routeing wasn't available.

I respect the view that the airspace should be available to all users at all times. It should. But sadly history has shown than this isn't always as safe as it should be.

fourthreethree,

I’m interested to learn precisely what you mean by “False RA”.

Do you mean :

(1) The TCAS system was malfunctioning – ie operating outside its technical specifications – and issued an RA that should not have been issued if the TCAS was performing correctly; or

(2) The TCAS system was performing as advertised and correctly issued an RA in accordance with its technical specifications?

Mr Big,

I agree.

But listening to the radio is not the ONLY way to obtain situational awareness information.

Fourthreethree,

It’s not possible now – at least not with the same airspace capacity.

When the UK ATC computers fail (as they have done) the whole airspace comes to a grinding halt. No one is allowed to take-off and those that are already airborne suffer lengthy holding. When things come back online the target sector flow rates are a mere fraction of what they usually are. The current airspace capacity is only possible because of the computers. Datalink will be no different.

garp,

I would not dispute that the FAA do have some of the most out-dated ATC computer systems on the planet. It’s a legacy from being first into the technology – there are now an enormous number of old, 1960s and 1970s computers that regularly break down, are difficult to maintain (both hardware and software) and which are long past their use-by date.

Thankfully, the private-sector development work that Boeing are doing in the area of air traffic management eclipses anything that is even on the drawing boards of the governments of Europe or the USA.

Point Seven,

I very much agree. :ok: :ok:

I wasn’t talking about next Wednesday either. :) I agree that it has to happen.

You aren’t. The only other option is to acquiesce to the NIMBYs demands to tax the hell out of aviation (as if it isn’t already :rolleyes: ) so that no one can afford to fly. I guess that’s one way to solve the airspace capacity problem! (Not my preferred way, mind you.)

Agreed.

See above.

Lon More,

I’ve read it.

You’ve re-invented the wheel.

There is much new development work yet to be done on the technology and procedures that surround datalink in order to allow it to work well in a terminal environment – the pilot and controller interfaces for example, the interfaces with yet to be developed automated ATC computer systems and with the more automated and more integrated airborne avionics of the future.

But before Europe starting work on all the sexy stuff they invested heavily in developing a new and incompatible basic communications protocol at a time when suitable technology already existed and was already in use.

Last time I flew IFR into Nuremburg the controllers were speaking Deutsch to aircraft that wanted to speak Deutsch and were speaking English to aircraft that wanted to speak English. It worked just fine.

Precisely! :ok:

I can only understand a few words of German - the numbers and a few other aviation related terms - but that was enough for me to have a fair idea of what was going on.

Like any technology – the massive amount of situational awareness information available from TCAS is only ever as good as the operator using it.

And there are many different types of TCAS displays – some allowing much greater situational awareness than others.

Some of the cheap and nasty retro-fitted TCAS units (the type that replace the round-dial electro-mechanical VSI with a combined LCD VSI/TCAS display) have a maximum traffic display range of just 12 nautical miles, with a reduced range of 6 nm being pilot-selectable. Other combined VSI/TCAS displays have a maximum range of just 15 nm. It’s fine when flying at relatively low speed in a terminal environment - but these displays are of only limited value when enroute.

The better TCAS displays overlay traffic information on a moving-map navigation display and have a TCAS traffic display range of at least 40 nm.

As a bare minimum, most TCAS systems will display traffic within a window of +2,700 feet to -2,700 feet. But the better units also allow the flight crew to select +/-9,900 feet. On some units +/-8,400 feet is pilot selectable.

If a particular TCAS display has maximum display parameters of +/-2,700 feet, or if the flight crew has neglected to select -9,900 feet when such a selection is available then the TCAS display will not show traffic that is (for example) 3,000 feet below – at least not until that traffic becomes a TA or RA.

It’s also possible (but highly unusual) to fly around with no TCAS traffic displayed – with just the TA/RA aurals.

So there are a few variables. If you want the best possible TCAS derived situational awareness then get a TCAS display that goes to 40 (or more) miles and +/-9,900 feet and always ensure that you use the most appropriate display settings. You wouldn’t, for example, want +9,900 feet selected if you were in a 3,000 feet per minute descent. Displaying traffic that is more than 2,700 feet above will only serve to clutter the display and might mean that you don’t notice other more relevant traffic that is below you.

Hardly surprising.

If you issue a descent clearance with a crossing constraint without specifying “descend now....” or “when ready....” then why is it unreasonable for the flight crew to seek clarification?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that more often than not a flight crew that make the query will be told “descend when ready”.

If controllers always specified “when ready” or “descend now” when issuing a descent clearance with a crossing constraint then there would be no uncertainty, and the flight crew query would be redundant.

In any case, why was it imperative to leave the descent instruction so perilously late that just the very briefest of delays from two simple flight crew queries (which could just as easily have been two other stations transmitting simultaneously, or whatever) would necessitate a 4,500 – 5,000 feet per minute rate of descent in order to meet the crossing constraint? Isn’t it the case that the dangerously late descent instruction was the point at which the wheels fell off the separation wagon in the Lake Constance disaster?

The resulting RA that you describe is clearly the result of a high closure rate - both vertically and laterally. TCAS works in terms of the time to (and separation at) the closest point of approach. TCAS is not interested in the concept of “cleared level” because there is never any absolute guarantee that an aircraft will actually stop at its ATC-assigned level. As long as the crews don’t fly against an RA then TCAS will keep the planes apart without any regard for who is cleared to what level.

A slightly more un-nerving variation on the theme is the TCAS “crossing RA” where the descender is issued with a TCAS RA to increase descent THROUGH its cleared level and the conflicting traffic below is issued with a TCAS RA to climb or to increase climb ABOVE or THROUGH its cleared level. The two aircraft pass not only through their own cleared levels but the aircraft also vertically pass each other. A crossing RA can be most disconcerting for everyone involved - but it will still result in a miss as long as the crews don’t fly against the RA.

A crossing RA is almost always the result of an irresponsibly high rate of climb or descent when close to a cleared level. The adequacy of flight crew training in this area is open to question. The UK has mandated the fitment of TCAS in certain aircraft. Although there is mandatory flight crew training, many operators treat it as no more than a box-ticking exercise. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that flight crew knowledge about TCAS is woefully inadequate - self-induced RAs due to excessive vertical rates when close to a cleared level (and even the occasional crossing RA) prove it. Will the problem go away? No.

One might also question the timing of descent clearances with crossing constraints that are issued so impossibly late that the flight crew can only come back with “we’ll do our best”.

It’s entirely possible that at the precise moment when the flight crew asked for confirmation of the turn instruction the conflicting traffic was not clearly displayed on their TCAS display. This could happen for any number of reasons (see above).

But would you prefer that the flight-crew NOT question an instruction that doesn’t sound right – for whatever reason?

How about the flight crew that was inbound to Amsterdam on a heading of approximately east and expecting runway 18C that misunderstood a verbal heading instruction as 255 degrees. Should the flight crew question that? Well one flight crew didn’t – they just flew the right turn (as they believed they had been instructed and as they had read back), putting them head to head with following traffic!

The three people that all pressed their push to talk at the same time prevented the controller hearing the incorrect read-back. As far as the flight crew were concerned they had read back the heading instruction and had not been corrected by the controller. Had the flight crew queried it they would have realised that it was for another aircraft.

Flight crew must be encouraged to clarify any instructions that don’t seem right – for whatever reason.

Fourthreethree,

Agreed - please see above.

Again, would you prefer the flight crew to NOT query your descent instruction if they believed (for whatever reason) that there was traffic below?

Isn’t it better for the flight crew to double check and look like a bit of a goose than not ask the question at all?

Aren’t we all playing the same game here?

Slippers,

Doing it that way wouldn’t be any quicker. Your rate of data entry is clearly the weak link in the chain.

And you’re right - that’s basically how datalink has been used on Pacific routes for nearly ten years.

But that type of controller interface is now old hat and we need to look to the future.

The great advantage of datalink is that it can transmit vast quantities of explicitly addressed data very quickly and very reliably with automatic confirmation that the correct recipients have received the correct data.

Datalink is not the be all and end all in its own right – datalink is an enabling technology that will allow an ATC computer to communicate directly with an airborne avionics suite – or a thousand airborne avionics suites. And the ability to do that has enormous potential to increase safety, efficiency and capacity.

But please don’t imagine for a minute that there will be a human sitting at a keyboard or manipulating a mouse trying to input detailed instructions for hundreds or thousands of aircraft. There wont.

The human air traffic controller’s job will change from one of micro-managing a handful of aircraft, “controlling”, to one of overseeing the automated handling of vast numbers of aircraft – “managing”.

Agreed. And the main reason for that is that for the overwhelming majority of the time the computers do a fabulous job and don’t need human intervention.

It is.

But the question we should be asking ourselves is not whether there will be disasters due to lack of human ability to reliably monitor ATC computers - the question we should be asking is whether the rate of those disasters will be more or less than what the rate would be if we continue with the current labor-intensive ATC methods that rely on fallible humans processing enormous volumes of data to formulate a plan and then correctly communicate instructions to other fallible humans via an unreliable asynchronous VHF voice link.

I think that on that measure the scales are tipped in favour of a more automated ATC process – particularly so when you consider the vastly greater traffic densities that will be required in the future.

Again, the question is not what type of work humans are best at – the question is what is the best overall solution for the management of air traffic.

Is it preferable to have the detailed tasks performed by humans simply because it allows human ATCers to be working to their greatest potential, or would it be better to use a more automated system if it could achieve better ATM performance in terms of safety, efficiency and capacity?

Garp,

Agreed. Unfortunately technological progress is never as fast as it needs to be. As Point Seven said – we’re “...not talking about next Wednesday”.

ModernDinosaur

Although different datalink systems do many things differently one of the things they have in common is the ability to address messages to a specific aircraft.

Executive instructions from ATC are explicitly addressed and are delivered only to the particular aircraft that is directly affected.

You wont have to wade through pages and pages of data to find a message that was directed to you.

I’d expect that too.

Unfortunately there are two problems.

Firstly, the status quo in the UK is that the vast majority of “airways” are class A – no VFR allowed. I can’t see any sensible justification for this. Why couldn’t this airspace be class B, for example? In class B VFR is allowed but everything is still separated from everything else. Then again, what’s wrong with class C? Class C is still a known traffic environment and everyone needs a clearance. Why couldn’t the airways be class C?

The controlled airspace issue is further complicated because in the UK many people incorrectly assume that “controlled airspace” necessarily means class A. I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve sternly told me that one is not allowed to fly in “controlled airspace” unless one has an instrument rating. They don’t seem to realise that the class D control zone surrounding their local airport is controlled airspace! (Not to mention class B and class C.)

The other problem is that there has been chronic under investment in the UK’s aviation infrastructure for decades – same as the railways.

Someone’s got to pay for it and no one is putting their hand up.

A group of airlines tried but most of them have now written off their investment in NATS as a bad joke that resulted from a flawed decision that seemed like a good idea at the time.

Controlled airspace (whether class A, B, C, D or E) exists to reduce the risk that fare paying passengers will be involved in a mid-air collision. But I agree that it’s a bit useless if it doesn’t go where the planes go! The airway system exists to service the needs of air traffic - not the other way ‘round.

Jerricho,

Yep - been there done that, thanks. And I do agree that the pressures are enormous.

Even though the vast majority of air traffic controllers are highly intelligent, highly skilled and highly motivated people they find themselves needing to utilise a dangerously large proportion of their available brain power whilst performing a safety critical function under enormous pressure.

It’s hardly the sort of task that we should be entrusting to mere humans!

These sound like the words of someone who is so engrossed in micro-managing the detail that they cant see the forest for the trees.

I’m always open to new suggestions because I know that there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

When it’s all said and done most airline flight crew are obliged to follow their company’s standard operating procedures. Flight crew are told how to do their job.

Just the same as air traffic controllers are told how to do their job. I’m referring to MATS Part 1 and the multitude of different inter-unit interface agreements, amongst other criteria.

In regard to datalink and more automated ATC processes it’s quite obvious that the rulebook will require significant revision. I’m talking in terms of re-writing the rule book – not how to comply with the current one that has been constrained by technology and which has remained largely unchanged for decades.

Would an icon that said “RUNWAY CLOSED – DELAY NOT DETERMINED” suit you?

A human air traffic controller detects that an aircraft is stuck on the runway and clicks an icon. The automated ATC computer has been continuously calculating a go-around plan for all the inbounds every few seconds. The ATC computer issues aircraft specific explicitly addressed go-around instructions via datalink. All the inbounds are automatically assigned a holding fix and level.

Flight crews can continue to hold or they can nominate a diversion airport via datalink. If they request to divert the automated ATC computer will generate a clearance to the alternate including enroute, STAR, time to leave the alternate’s inbound holding fix and the landing runway.

When the disabled aircraft has been removed from the runway the human air traffic controller can click on a “RUNWAY OPEN” icon and the automated ATC computer will issue each of the inbounds with an aircraft specific explicitly addressed time to leave the holding fix and instrument approach clearance.

Dare I suggest it – garbage in garbage out. Any computer system can only ever be as good as its software.

We must ensure that any future automated ATC system is developed by a team of the very best and brightest computer specialists, ATCers and flight crew.

Please rest assured that at Boeing that is precisely what is happening.

radar707

Why are you attempting to provide a separation service involving unknown traffic outside controlled airspace?

Or perhaps more to the point, why does your employer require you to attempt to provide a separation service involving unknown traffic outside controlled airspace? What a silly state of affairs!

If the traffic density and/or traffic type in a particular area does genuinely need a separation service then the area should be designated as controlled airspace.

I know that UK ATC units can provide RAS / RIS / FIS to participating traffic in an unknown traffic environment outside controlled airspace – but what other country attempts to do this? Is this just another quaint ICAO difference?

RAS does nothing more than provide the appearance of a separation service – it’s a feel good measure that is big on vibe and small on substance. And as your post amply demonstrates, attempting to provide RAS in an unknown traffic environment is not only hugely labor-intensive, but it relies entirely on the great skill, careful judgement, and faultless performance of a fallible human air traffic controller. At best, all of that sounds rather optimistic. At worst, it’s nothing more than a perilous ruse.

And is it really all that sensible to have military aircraft conducting combat manoeuvres amongst the tax-payer carrying civilian aircraft in class G airspace?

OK, let’s think about this. Civilian aircraft (the big ’uns and the little ’uns) need a convenient place to fly but they don’t want to get run-down by a combat aircraft in a mid-air collision.

The military would ideally like an area all to themselves for their exclusive use, free from the hazard and distraction of civilian aircraft, where all traffic is known and the chaps can “roger” and “tally-ho” to their heart’s content.

And what’s the current situation? An enormous compromise that suits no one.

The military fly their combat manoeuvres in class G, but the area is designated an “Area of Intense Air Activity”, warning civilian pilots not to fly there – unless they want to. AIAA or not – it’s still class G.

The defence forces exist to protect the taxpayers, not imperil them – which is precisely what they do when they fly combat manoeuvres in class G airspace.

The civilian pilots (big ’uns and little ’uns) fly through these AIAAs and either cross their fingers and hope for the best, relying on the big-sky theory (which works extremely well for 99.99% of the time), or they talk to someone on the radio and obtain a half-baked separation service (RAS) in an unknown traffic environment outside controlled airspace.

No one is doing anything illegal – but it’s a very big compromise from both perspectives.

I’m sure that those who conceived this compromise perceived it as being the best of both worlds.

But I suggest that in reality what we actually have is they very worst of both worlds.

The military will, at times, need to reserve an area of airspace for their exclusive use. Why not allocate suitable restricted areas? They don’t have to be permanent – they could be only at certain published times of the day on certain days of the week (like the AIAAs are now), or they could be activated by NOTAM. The restricted areas don’t even have to be in the UK. Many civilian and military pilots already spend a significant proportion of their training time outside their home country. Does it really make sense for military pilots to conduct combat training manoeuvres in the densely populated airspace over a densely populated small island? I think not.

Alternately, why not designate all of the airspace that is currently an AIAA as class C airspace. When the airspace is required for military operations it can be allocated, either wholly or in blocks, to military users. In effect – nothing more than obtaining a clearance. When the airspace is not required for military operations civilian traffic can obtain a clearance to transit or operate with a more realistic expectation that they are not going to be run down by fast moving military traffic.

The question is simple – is it safe for civilian light aircraft and small airliners to fly in class G AIAAs whilst military aircraft are conducting combat training manoeuvres?

If the answer to that question is YES then why are we having this discussion?

By classifying the AIAAs as class G the UK government is tacitly suggesting that it’s perfectly safe - anyone is allowed to fly there at anytime. If it wasn’t safe to fly there then the government would not have classified it as class G.

But if, as many viewers seem to be suggesting, the answer is NO then we need some way of POSITIVELY ensuring that separation is maintained. The only real way is to have a known traffic environment – either a restricted area or some class of controlled airspace.

If the traffic is outside controlled airspace then why are you required to attempt to provide it with any service? It’s not a known traffic environment – leave ’em alone.

Now we are getting to the heart of the problem.

Why has this traffic only just popped up? And why is there no pressure altitude information?

The UK authorities have mandated the carriage of TCAS in certain aircraft.

But they have not mandated that all other aircraft must carry and use a transponder with altitude reporting.

It’s a half-hearted solution that in reality is just window dressing.

I’m told by various UK-based air traffic controllers (civil and military) that 85+% of the non-squawking (or squawking but with no altitude information) traffic that are asked to “squawk mode C” come back with a verifiable altitude that is within vertical navigation tolerances within just a few seconds. It would seem that the vast majority of (mainly light, but sometimes military) aircraft that are flying around without squawking have this stuff fitted but switched off!!!!

I’m told by various aero-club and flying school instructors and students that they make a regular practice of flying around with their transponder’s altitude output switched off so that they “don’t get caught being somewhere we are not supposed to be”. This is an entirely ridiculous state of affairs. If they are not where they are supposed to be then that is PRECISELY the time when it is imperative that surrounding traffic know EXACTLY where they are!

There needs to be a law that mandates that if an aircraft is fitted with an altitude reporting transponder that it must be switched on with altitude reporting enabled. Such a requirement would have no cost impact on airspace users.

Which leaves those aircraft without an automatic altitude reporting function. Various flying magazine advertisements show altitude encoding blind altimeters available in the UK, tax paid, for under £150. Is this too much to ask? I think not.

See above about military aircraft in class G.

But the main reason I wouldn’t see it is I will be head inside looking at the TCAS display – particularly if I am in cloud at the time. But even that’s a bit of a waste of time if other aircraft refuse to switch on their altitude reporting transponder.

Any existing computer system? Yes.

Any future computer system? We’ll see.

ferris,

The preferred European datalink protocol is VDL-2 which uses VHF.

You seem to imply that I should fear the advance of automation because of some unspecified desire to perform continuous and repetitive detailed tasks associated with operating an aircraft.

I don’t.

Or perhaps it’s that you believe that I should for some reason be motivated to resist safety, capacity and efficiency enhancing technological advances for the sole purpose of conspiring to keep as many pilots employed as is possible.

I’m not.

I don’t believe that the primary reason for the existence of the aviation industry is to provide employment for pilots or for air traffic controllers (or anyone else).

Air traffic controllers are often highly intelligent, highly skilled and highly motivated people. Some of my best mates are air traffic controllers (or former controllers).

What I do hate is inefficiency.

I agree. :ok: The less we rely the variable performance of humans and the more we automate both processes the better. Safety, capacity and efficiency will all improve.

Sounds great – I can’t wait! I look forward to the time off! :) :ok:

But as we both know the reality will be nothing like that.

It is certainly true that there has been a significant reduction in the number of flight deck crew required to operate a large airliner.

In the bad old days airliners required a captain, a co-pilot, a flight engineer, a navigator, and a radio operator. And if you flew very long flights you had to carry two of each!

Thankfully, aircraft technology and airborne automation have improved to the point that now even the very largest airliners are operated by a flight deck crew of just two.

Over the last few decades airliners have gone from requiring five crew - to four - to three - to two. You really don’t have to be Einstein to predict what the next step will be! :) :ok:

The military are already making great progress with the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles. Technology that is initially developed for military purposes has a habit of eventually finding its way onto civilian aircraft. Perhaps there might be two more steps to go!

Bring it on I say! :ok:

The aviation industry does not exist simply to provide employment for pilots or air traffic controllers.

All that being as it may.....even if one were to take a rather left-wing socialist “make work” attitude towards the aviation industry in the belief that it exists primarily to provide employment for the greatest possible number of people, the anti-automation argument still seems to fall flat.

A more automated ATC, with a network of ATC computers automatically generating clearances and issuing them to an automated airborne avionics suite via datalink with the aircraft being left alone to fly itself in LNAV and VNAV will be a great thing for the workers.

Air traffic “controllers” will become air traffic “managers”. They wont have to get bogged down with the detailed micro-management of a small number of aircraft. Air traffic managers will oversee the automated control of a much larger number of aircraft at a much greater traffic density. There will be very little to do but put your feet up and drink coffee (I say – that sounds frightfully familiar.... ;) ).

And don’t believe for a moment that there will be a smaller total number of controllers required. The compound growth in air transport movements will cause an enormous increase in traffic density (isn’t that what the whole TV show was about?) and there will be just as many (if not more) of your comrades employed – but each one of them will be one or two orders of magnitude more productive.

All of the above – pilot selectable – by the (one and only, for now at least) pilot. :)