Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... no problems with "communicate" being the lowest priority
I've just found a nice definition of airmanship which is, "the ability to act wisely in the conduct of flight operations under difficult conditions"
On that basis it would seem to me to be "wise" to "navigate" your aircraft well clear of zones (of all descriptions)... to avoid potential "difficult conditions"... but if for whatever reason you find yourself close to one you "communicate".
Skirting the zone may not be illegal (no problem with that)... however, there are plenty of things that don't break the law, but you'd be stupid to do them. God help us when the law books take away from us the ability to act on common-sense, and be responsible for our actions... but I fear we're moving toward that day.
PS. the reason you cannot report an illegal ATC instruction is because "instruction" to non-complying aircraft in Class G airspace isn't an instruction, just a badly worded request...
I've just found a nice definition of airmanship which is, "the ability to act wisely in the conduct of flight operations under difficult conditions"
On that basis it would seem to me to be "wise" to "navigate" your aircraft well clear of zones (of all descriptions)... to avoid potential "difficult conditions"... but if for whatever reason you find yourself close to one you "communicate".
Skirting the zone may not be illegal (no problem with that)... however, there are plenty of things that don't break the law, but you'd be stupid to do them. God help us when the law books take away from us the ability to act on common-sense, and be responsible for our actions... but I fear we're moving toward that day.
PS. the reason you cannot report an illegal ATC instruction is because "instruction" to non-complying aircraft in Class G airspace isn't an instruction, just a badly worded request...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its good to talk....
It doesn't cost anything to say "Hi, I'm here and will be passing 5 miles south, just thought I'd let you know"......if you have a radio.
If I had my way, all G would be replaced by E, then the lower A replaced by D, and airways changed to D up to FL100.......That way we wouldn't be stuck down so low as to worry about flying close to an ATZ.....
It doesn't cost anything to say "Hi, I'm here and will be passing 5 miles south, just thought I'd let you know"......if you have a radio.
If I had my way, all G would be replaced by E, then the lower A replaced by D, and airways changed to D up to FL100.......That way we wouldn't be stuck down so low as to worry about flying close to an ATZ.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre - "PS. the reason you cannot report an illegal ATC instruction is because "instruction" to non-complying aircraft in Class G airspace isn't an instruction, just a badly worded request..."
You missed the point. If a pilot transgresses then SOME (not all) ATSU are only too willing to report for further action. So if some ATC types "transgress" from there comfy and safe working environment, even if it was a "badly worded request" that a tyro accepted as an instruction, why not have the further action applied?
I think the whole point of previous comments, from pilots at any rate, shows there is a belief in partnership. There are just a few controllers who think of a master/servant relationship. Let me tell you - IT AINT SO.
You missed the point. If a pilot transgresses then SOME (not all) ATSU are only too willing to report for further action. So if some ATC types "transgress" from there comfy and safe working environment, even if it was a "badly worded request" that a tyro accepted as an instruction, why not have the further action applied?
I think the whole point of previous comments, from pilots at any rate, shows there is a belief in partnership. There are just a few controllers who think of a master/servant relationship. Let me tell you - IT AINT SO.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had my way, all G would be replaced by E, then the lower A replaced by D, and airways changed to D up to FL100.......That way we wouldn't be stuck down so low as to worry about flying close to an ATZ.....
Food for thought. What are people's opinions on an airport with approx 100K passenger throughput per year, with IAP's used extensively by GA for training as well as semi-commercial units, having Class 'E' in the UK.
Now before people scream "Airspace Grab! Don't allow it!" READ what class 'E' means to VFR & IFR traffic.
Consider my rant on the subject in
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=2
to have been posted here too.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=2
to have been posted here too.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree on the definition of airmanship.
It is a state of mind at all times from the moment you open the hangar door until you lock it again.
Not making a busy frequency busier with unnecessary courtesy calls is good airmanship.
If you ARE the traffic which they describe to another then make the call because it is relevant.
It is a state of mind at all times from the moment you open the hangar door until you lock it again.
Not making a busy frequency busier with unnecessary courtesy calls is good airmanship.
If you ARE the traffic which they describe to another then make the call because it is relevant.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rant noted - but I honestly don't think it's particularly relevant.
Class 'E' is more a psychological approach to airspace management. The IAP chevron is a complete waste of space (and totally pointless as it only depicts an IAP on one end of the runway - we've got them on both!). The line on the map however is a totally different matter - it alerts people that something is happening inside that area.
You only have to look at the number of PPL posts on PPRuNe regarding entry into AIAA's that back this up
Class 'E' is more a psychological approach to airspace management. The IAP chevron is a complete waste of space (and totally pointless as it only depicts an IAP on one end of the runway - we've got them on both!). The line on the map however is a totally different matter - it alerts people that something is happening inside that area.
You only have to look at the number of PPL posts on PPRuNe regarding entry into AIAA's that back this up
The line on the map however is a totally different matter - it alerts people that something is happening inside that area.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
No - that wouldn't be good enough. It would have to be something that was legally recognisable such as Class 'E' due to other reasons which I cannot go into here. Besides, why introduce something else that people would have to learn about when you have an airspace tool available "off the shelf" as it were.
Also the legally enforceable bit allows VFR with total freedom, but prevents the ludicrous situation you have now that somebody IFR can go straight through an approach, in IMC, without talking to anybody (and believe me they do!)
No - that wouldn't be good enough. It would have to be something that was legally recognisable such as Class 'E' due to other reasons which I cannot go into here. Besides, why introduce something else that people would have to learn about when you have an airspace tool available "off the shelf" as it were.
Also the legally enforceable bit allows VFR with total freedom, but prevents the ludicrous situation you have now that somebody IFR can go straight through an approach, in IMC, without talking to anybody (and believe me they do!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finals Three Greens
So what you're really objecting to is someone coming into your playground?
You can't just conjour up a CTZ and Airways. NATS will only approve CAS around an airport if it meets certain criteria. One of these is it must shift a certain number of passengers a year... so while the airport is trying to build up business/passenger numbers they're stuck with just an ATZ and isolated from the National Airspace structure.
As seen above, GA pilots bang on about how they can look after yourselves... three 8's... see and avoid etc, but it seems to me some don't want the responsibility when something bigger and faster comes into the picture especially, dare I say it, if they might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives. make no mistake, that's the game they're playing. I, personally don't have any issue about whether GA or Commercials have priority... in fact I would fight for the right of GA pilots along with the best of them... all are entitled to use Class G, but please do it sensibly?
Like routing airliners through class G
You can't just conjour up a CTZ and Airways. NATS will only approve CAS around an airport if it meets certain criteria. One of these is it must shift a certain number of passengers a year... so while the airport is trying to build up business/passenger numbers they're stuck with just an ATZ and isolated from the National Airspace structure.
As seen above, GA pilots bang on about how they can look after yourselves... three 8's... see and avoid etc, but it seems to me some don't want the responsibility when something bigger and faster comes into the picture especially, dare I say it, if they might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives. make no mistake, that's the game they're playing. I, personally don't have any issue about whether GA or Commercials have priority... in fact I would fight for the right of GA pilots along with the best of them... all are entitled to use Class G, but please do it sensibly?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Pierre
You can't have it both ways, either:
(a) it is sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft even if it might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives and equally sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ
-or-
(b) it is not sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft and equally not sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ
So which is it to be? Come on, out with it
You can't have it both ways, either:
(a) it is sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft even if it might be responsible for an accident involving hundreds of lives and equally sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ
-or-
(b) it is not sensible to route airliners through class G airspace where there are non radio aircraft and equally not sensible for light aircraft not to use a radio, even when skirting ATZ
So which is it to be? Come on, out with it
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a very contrived choice. Plainly, it doesn't have to be either of those options.
It is sensible to route airliners through class G if it is safe to do so, because it avoids the need for more controlled airspace (are we not all broadly in favour of this? Anyone?). It is sensible for light aircraft skirting ATZ's to make themselves known so that they don't get a nasty shock.
What is not sensible is for light aircraft to keep schtum out of a perverse desire to delay IFR traffic and stick one to the big boys, because ultimately it will lead to more controlled airspace. Am I wrong?
It is sensible to route airliners through class G if it is safe to do so, because it avoids the need for more controlled airspace (are we not all broadly in favour of this? Anyone?). It is sensible for light aircraft skirting ATZ's to make themselves known so that they don't get a nasty shock.
What is not sensible is for light aircraft to keep schtum out of a perverse desire to delay IFR traffic and stick one to the big boys, because ultimately it will lead to more controlled airspace. Am I wrong?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It cannot be safe to route IFR flights through 'G' airspace unless they are able to maintain own seperation. This just isn't a practical option for an extended period.
Whilst others can fly IMC in class G without a service then there is a serious potential conflict.
The E and D option are sensible and workwell in other countries.
Whilst others can fly IMC in class G without a service then there is a serious potential conflict.
The E and D option are sensible and workwell in other countries.
It cannot be safe to route IFR flights through 'G' airspace unless they are able to maintain own seperation.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli,
Absolutely think that Class E should be provided at every airfield with IAPs and that the figure for having Class D should be set quite high i.e. places like Bournemouth, Southampton, Cardiff, Bristol, Prestwick etc would probably be Class E along with Filton, Exeter, Plymouth, Farnborough etc etc.
One could even place large areas of class E CTAs (base 3000ft) round airfields that provide LARS and these areas would not only ensure that the appropriate level of service was available to IFR flights but would clearly define the areas within which the service is available.
Class E at Bristol would facilitate SIDs and STARs - a big safety improvement.
And all that without having any effect on the VFR pilot's ability.
Perhaps our response to the review of ATSOCAS should be that it should be put within class E airspace!
Regards,
DFC
Absolutely think that Class E should be provided at every airfield with IAPs and that the figure for having Class D should be set quite high i.e. places like Bournemouth, Southampton, Cardiff, Bristol, Prestwick etc would probably be Class E along with Filton, Exeter, Plymouth, Farnborough etc etc.
One could even place large areas of class E CTAs (base 3000ft) round airfields that provide LARS and these areas would not only ensure that the appropriate level of service was available to IFR flights but would clearly define the areas within which the service is available.
Class E at Bristol would facilitate SIDs and STARs - a big safety improvement.
And all that without having any effect on the VFR pilot's ability.
Perhaps our response to the review of ATSOCAS should be that it should be put within class E airspace!
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rodan
I think you miss my point, there is no requirement to carry a radio in class G, so one must assume that some non radio traffic will be out there, some potentially skirting ATZs by the use of GPS.
Then consider the original question by Pierre Argh and ask yourself why it is so bad for aircraft to skirt ATZs out o f radio contact, when the ATC who manage the ATZs are quite happy to blast off airliners into an environment where non radio traffic is both permitted and known to operate.
It doesn't stack up to me.
If the first post had been worded in a less confrontational manner, perhaps "things we can do to reduce potential traffic conflicts", then maybe I would take a different view.
As it is, the natural human reaction is to skirt an ATZ and switch off the radio next time, whereas fortunately my common sense overrides this and radio contact will be establsihed and maintained.
I don't thank that Pierre's tone is advancing ATC/GA relations.
It is sensible for light aircraft skirting ATZ's to make themselves known so that they don't get a nasty shock.
Then consider the original question by Pierre Argh and ask yourself why it is so bad for aircraft to skirt ATZs out o f radio contact, when the ATC who manage the ATZs are quite happy to blast off airliners into an environment where non radio traffic is both permitted and known to operate.
It doesn't stack up to me.
If the first post had been worded in a less confrontational manner, perhaps "things we can do to reduce potential traffic conflicts", then maybe I would take a different view.
As it is, the natural human reaction is to skirt an ATZ and switch off the radio next time, whereas fortunately my common sense overrides this and radio contact will be establsihed and maintained.
I don't thank that Pierre's tone is advancing ATC/GA relations.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some potentially skirting ATZs by the use of GPS.
With a GPS, anyone (including those who don't know every local shed) can do it, and do it accurately.
One question is whether a busy place e.g. Gatwick would actually want somebody doing that to call them up. They are highly unlikely to offer an RIS to a VFR flight; one might get a nominal FIS which will mean little or nothing (to either side) unless a squawk is allocated.
It does puzzle me a little how places like Manston can operate 747s out of there, with so many bimblers around, non-radio and non-transponder. They must wait for the radar to be entirely clear in the relevant area before clearing the departure.