Safety Alert PFA Rally Routings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South of 65N
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Alert PFA Rally Routings
Please be aware that inbound routes JUNO and GOLD to Kemble on the sector Petersfield-Greenham Common passes over Lasham (EGHL) Concurrent with the Rally a Gliding competition will be happening with 100+ Gliders in the area at all levels from surface to top of convection . Please consider a reroute and/or keep a very good lookout. Lets keep it safe for everyone
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition the UTAH routeing and published level crosses nicely with the ILS approach to 27 at Filton, in the vicinity of Junction 18 on the M4. This is probably going to be busy with instrument training traffic on the Friday, plus BAE/Airbus/Rolls Royce are having a Families day with flying demo's and displays on the Saturday.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Alert?? I should say so!!
Nice to see some planning has gone into this!! Most pilots will be too busy looking at their GPS to look for gliders, and if the Filton Air display is as busy as I think it will be with Fast jet traffic, then good luck chaps! As old Shaw Taylor used to sign off in Police 5, "Keep 'em peeled"
What a farce. Last year's routing took people almost over a parachute drop zone!
Have a nice day
Nice to see some planning has gone into this!! Most pilots will be too busy looking at their GPS to look for gliders, and if the Filton Air display is as busy as I think it will be with Fast jet traffic, then good luck chaps! As old Shaw Taylor used to sign off in Police 5, "Keep 'em peeled"
What a farce. Last year's routing took people almost over a parachute drop zone!
Have a nice day
Last edited by Zlin526; 28th Jun 2004 at 21:11.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big sky policy
Sure it is going to be busy - sure Kemble is in close prox to other 'dromes, AIAA, etc - BUT as PIC you are responsible - having said that, it will be less busy than J6 of the M6 or J15 of the M1 and they are 2d.
I will fly to the rally from Cornwall, will drop into Gloucs (Staverton) for motion lotion and will be tracking my progress at 120kts on a half mill map - eyeballs out of the cockpit, thumb slowly inching up the map.
do plan your route carefuly( that is your responsibility notwithstanding the AIC) , do keep a very good look out, do arrive and join at Kemble in accordance with the AIC
do go and do have fun!
Stik
I will fly to the rally from Cornwall, will drop into Gloucs (Staverton) for motion lotion and will be tracking my progress at 120kts on a half mill map - eyeballs out of the cockpit, thumb slowly inching up the map.
do plan your route carefuly( that is your responsibility notwithstanding the AIC) , do keep a very good look out, do arrive and join at Kemble in accordance with the AIC
do go and do have fun!
Stik
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, it's Class G... see and avoid applies!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CM,
So, what are you proposing to address this? Are you suggesting more controlled airspace?
The risks of IFR approach phases through Class G exist at all times. Radar approach assistance is provided, and on a day like this - as with the glider competitions but less so - the APP unit will advise the IFR arrival that there are multiple returns, level unknown. When in VMC in Class G the IFR arrival has to see and avoid or divert.
That is the system unless you put Class D airspace, or some other type, around the airfield. Is that what you propose? Is it really necessary? IMHO, we either accept and understand the risks of Class G, or we give it up.
Arguably it would be a bit better for the IFR arrival if we were to convert the Class G to Class E at low levels, as in much of France and the US for example. In the US this affords IFR from IFR separation when in IMC, but doesn't change the risk that you are concerned with here.
So, I recognise the risks but I am not clear what you are proposing to do about it? I guess you could cancel the rally, but that would seem a bit OTT...
Andy
So, what are you proposing to address this? Are you suggesting more controlled airspace?
The risks of IFR approach phases through Class G exist at all times. Radar approach assistance is provided, and on a day like this - as with the glider competitions but less so - the APP unit will advise the IFR arrival that there are multiple returns, level unknown. When in VMC in Class G the IFR arrival has to see and avoid or divert.
That is the system unless you put Class D airspace, or some other type, around the airfield. Is that what you propose? Is it really necessary? IMHO, we either accept and understand the risks of Class G, or we give it up.
Arguably it would be a bit better for the IFR arrival if we were to convert the Class G to Class E at low levels, as in much of France and the US for example. In the US this affords IFR from IFR separation when in IMC, but doesn't change the risk that you are concerned with here.
So, I recognise the risks but I am not clear what you are proposing to do about it? I guess you could cancel the rally, but that would seem a bit OTT...
Andy
So close, and yet so far!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Uk
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put, AA. Class G is there for all to use - and nobody should think they have any more right to use it than anyone else.
And when it comes down to it, any incusions, infringements or general cock-ups that may occur are, as always, the responsibility of the individual pilot - and no-one else. How much nannying do those flying into the rally want or need?
BTW, I don't think CM has any objections to the Rally as a whole... just 'not in his backyard'!
GF
And when it comes down to it, any incusions, infringements or general cock-ups that may occur are, as always, the responsibility of the individual pilot - and no-one else. How much nannying do those flying into the rally want or need?
BTW, I don't think CM has any objections to the Rally as a whole... just 'not in his backyard'!
GF
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan W,
I don't know, I recall rescuing tens of people after a junk sank on the Lantau side of Stonecutters Island 19 years ago this month!
A few months later had to search for a chap who'd fallen off the 3rd deck of the Silvermine Bay ferry, mid crossing, late at night. We found him!
Stik
I don't know, I recall rescuing tens of people after a junk sank on the Lantau side of Stonecutters Island 19 years ago this month!
A few months later had to search for a chap who'd fallen off the 3rd deck of the Silvermine Bay ferry, mid crossing, late at night. We found him!
Stik
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SE UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ye Gods has someone really published 'routes' in Class G airspace that cut through an ILS or overfly a busy glider site??
As with all such events notification has to be given to AUS, AIC's published and possibly NOTAM's raised. Kemble themselves must have consulted with CAA SRG on the subject of air traffic services to be provided and safety measures required. Has no one in the CAA actually checked that what is being proposed is a good idea??
As with all such events notification has to be given to AUS, AIC's published and possibly NOTAM's raised. Kemble themselves must have consulted with CAA SRG on the subject of air traffic services to be provided and safety measures required. Has no one in the CAA actually checked that what is being proposed is a good idea??
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie A
I'm going to disagree with Girl Flyday and say NOT nicely put. All you're showing is a total ignorance of IFR operations in class 'G' and a complete disregard of other airspace users who have as much (if not more valid) reason to be in a particular piece of airspace.
For a start - Class 'G' is not "see and avoid", VFR is "see and avoid" - if you're going to make sweeping statements get your facts straight!
So - I see a primary return in front of my IFR arrival - he's elected to go Radar Advisory. I have to avoid it and if that means breaking off the approach then that's what happens. Likewise if the pilot gets a TCAS Resolution Advisory. Do you think it's fair on them in terms of fuel burn? Fair in terms of delays? Fair in terms of possible diversion? Put yourself on that aircraft as a passenger or a member of the crew.
And it's not just Filton. Bristol arrivals from the east leave CAS in the vicinity of Lyneham and track towards the 10 mile point of the approach. Now, although the PFA route says "max alt 2500'" you can't accept that as gospel. You're therefore in the same situation. Put yourself in that position
(I said that before - I notice you didn't seem to. Sticking your head in the sand were you?)
Yes - these things happen every day, but with a lot less volume of VFR traffic, and it's manageable. However, bearing in mind that Fairford will be NOTAM'd as active how many aircraft are going to be funnelled up this route. A bit of decent planning on the part of the organisers / DAP could have brought them in on a route a lot safer, but as the people who won't have to deal with it what do they worry about - b
r all obviously 
Kemble was, is, and always will be the worst place in the world for such an event because of where it is. The sooner it moves out of there the better!
I'm going to disagree with Girl Flyday and say NOT nicely put. All you're showing is a total ignorance of IFR operations in class 'G' and a complete disregard of other airspace users who have as much (if not more valid) reason to be in a particular piece of airspace.
For a start - Class 'G' is not "see and avoid", VFR is "see and avoid" - if you're going to make sweeping statements get your facts straight!
So - I see a primary return in front of my IFR arrival - he's elected to go Radar Advisory. I have to avoid it and if that means breaking off the approach then that's what happens. Likewise if the pilot gets a TCAS Resolution Advisory. Do you think it's fair on them in terms of fuel burn? Fair in terms of delays? Fair in terms of possible diversion? Put yourself on that aircraft as a passenger or a member of the crew.
And it's not just Filton. Bristol arrivals from the east leave CAS in the vicinity of Lyneham and track towards the 10 mile point of the approach. Now, although the PFA route says "max alt 2500'" you can't accept that as gospel. You're therefore in the same situation. Put yourself in that position
(I said that before - I notice you didn't seem to. Sticking your head in the sand were you?)
Yes - these things happen every day, but with a lot less volume of VFR traffic, and it's manageable. However, bearing in mind that Fairford will be NOTAM'd as active how many aircraft are going to be funnelled up this route. A bit of decent planning on the part of the organisers / DAP could have brought them in on a route a lot safer, but as the people who won't have to deal with it what do they worry about - b
r all obviously Kemble was, is, and always will be the worst place in the world for such an event because of where it is. The sooner it moves out of there the better!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear CM, if its an argument you want (shame really)...
same to you with knobs on mate!
So who gets to decide who has a more valid reason to be in a particular piece of airspace? In Class G, it 'aint you mate! Of course, the charts highlight primary approach paths in Class G (i.e. "<<<<<" symbol on the chart) and in some instances there are holds in class G too, e.g. Alkin near Biggin Hill: as good citizens we should avoid these as part of normal VFR airmanship. I would hope that my fellow VFR pilots do so too, of course.
Your semantic argument is fatuous and besides the point. I think you know what I mean... "Class G is uncontrolled and pilots are responsible for providing separation between flights, whatever flight rules they are following", at least according to the current edition GASIL on pp. 12 which I quote. Surely this is not news to most people?
Yes. And if this is a problem operationally, perhaps the airfield operator should lobby for more controlled airspace locally to provide more adequate protection. AOPA (sh/w)ould be consulted, and life would move on. Otherwise, it is what it says on the box: Class G.
Who said its fair? Are you suggesting it would be fairer for VFR pilots in Class G to go somewhere else? Where? Is it "fair" on my fuel burn or my time? Happily we don't have to worry about what is fair, we just have to fly within the rules and exercise good airmanship. For the avoidance of doubt, that should include (as above) avoiding approach and holding areas, or request an information service (if offered/available) from the APP provider in that vicinity to enable good neighbourly coordination. But you seem to hanker for a separate pice of sky when it hasn't been allocated? How is that "fair"?
Que?
Maybe so - perhaps you could promulgate your proposed safer route? How have you coped druing previous events? Do you think it would be safer for no route to be suggested, I think I might agree with that. But your sweeping anti-VFR comments above are quite something else.
Anyway, don't worry: I won't be in your airspace that day!
Cheers,
Andy
total ignorance of IFR operations
other airspace users who have as much (if not more valid) reason to be in a particular piece of airspace.
Class 'G' is not "see and avoid", VFR is "see and avoid"
if that means breaking off the approach then that's what happens
Do you think it's fair ...
Sticking your head in the sand were you?
A bit of decent planning on the part of the organisers / DAP could have brought them in on a route a lot safer
Anyway, don't worry: I won't be in your airspace that day!
Cheers,
Andy
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting reading.....
You chaps need to do something with your airspace system, it's sound to be all f***** up......
The way you provide radar service in class G is (albeit needed it seems) very scary!
Looks like your only hope is that SES is forced onto the UK like the rest of europe......
You chaps need to do something with your airspace system, it's sound to be all f***** up......
The way you provide radar service in class G is (albeit needed it seems) very scary!
Looks like your only hope is that SES is forced onto the UK like the rest of europe......
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But your sweeping anti-VFR comments above are quite something else.
) You'll notice that I said under normal circumstances the situation is manageable. Hardly anti-VFR, more a happy state of admitting both sides of the operation can work together. (Don't forget - I fly too).However, this is not 'normal', and should have been thought of with a little bit of consultation (we only discovered the routes when the AIC was published - that's hardly sensible is it not?).
Airfield operators can't 'lobby' for CAS. It's all done on passenger numbers and involves a lengthy consultation process and is not granted lightly. Another hole in your knowledge base I'd say.
The difference between you and I is obviously I see things from both sides of the fence as well as the flight safety point of view. You only see yours - such vitriol doesn't exactly show you to be an expert on the matter (which you're not) so don't try and become one when you're not armed with all the knowledge and experience that others are.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
Good posts! They're fine examples of how arrogance, pointless aggression and ad-hominem attacks weaken an argument and derail what was threatening to be a useful thread.
As for the suggestion that someone has been at the booze, my money would not be on AA.
To return to the actual point here, you say that:
Ignoring the histrionics, the implication seems to be that IFR pilots, and the controllers dealing with them, assume that they have a degree of priority in practice that they do not actually have in law in Class G airspace, and expect VFR pilots to work to these same assumptions.
That doesn't seem to be particularly 'fair', or, more importantly, particularly safe.
Good posts! They're fine examples of how arrogance, pointless aggression and ad-hominem attacks weaken an argument and derail what was threatening to be a useful thread.
As for the suggestion that someone has been at the booze, my money would not be on AA.
To return to the actual point here, you say that:
All you're showing is a total ignorance of IFR operations in class 'G' and a complete disregard of other airspace users who have as much (if not more valid) reason to be in a particular piece of airspace.
That doesn't seem to be particularly 'fair', or, more importantly, particularly safe.