Why so much Class A around Heathrow?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
Flower
Please don't misunderstand - I have enormous respect for ATCOs at both LHR and LATCC - but one thing you said jarred.
That attitude, IMHO, perfectly sums up in just a few words the worst aspect of aviation in the UK.
I've heard variations of it many times when talking to some CAA people who seem to regard America as some third-world country which has just discovered the aeroplane and hasn't yet learned how to manage aviation.
Please don't misunderstand - I have enormous respect for ATCOs at both LHR and LATCC - but one thing you said jarred.
"I don't care how they do it in the USA this is how we do it in the UK"
I've heard variations of it many times when talking to some CAA people who seem to regard America as some third-world country which has just discovered the aeroplane and hasn't yet learned how to manage aviation.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
some CAA people who seem to regard America as some third-world country
Except when America is needed for something....
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
True, the VFR routes are only available when the weather is VFR conditions (hence the name "VFR routes"). I don't see why the same philosophy couldn't be applied here though, if it's VFR conditions at LHR, then transit will be approved, if it is not VFR, don't bother.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Can everyone who wants a VFR route across the Heathrow zone do some research into the arrival and departure routes and come up with a route that works without as someone said earlier ATC having to move heavy metal?
Try to do it with the current 2500ft TMA base and then again ignoring the TMA but not above 5000ft.
You will do very well.
Luton has a VFR corridor over the top! Do many ask for or use that?
Regards,
DFC
Try to do it with the current 2500ft TMA base and then again ignoring the TMA but not above 5000ft.
You will do very well.
Luton has a VFR corridor over the top! Do many ask for or use that?
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Ah, it's the weather! Why do so many Brits go on holiday to Southern California and think the rest of the US is some balmy paradise where everybody walks around in bathing suits drinking margarittas on the rocks to cool down.
Lets look at Chicago O'Hare. If Heathrow had the sort of weather you get in Chicago it would only be open 6 months of the year. ORD's surface area is roughly circular with a radius of 5.5nm. So the worlds busiest airport (LHR comes around 15th in movements) has a surface area of less than 100 square nm. How can Heathrow justify almost four times that amount?
Lets look at Chicago O'Hare. If Heathrow had the sort of weather you get in Chicago it would only be open 6 months of the year. ORD's surface area is roughly circular with a radius of 5.5nm. So the worlds busiest airport (LHR comes around 15th in movements) has a surface area of less than 100 square nm. How can Heathrow justify almost four times that amount?
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: UK
DFC,
I was a regular user of the Luton VFR route, but it became increasingly more difficult to get clearance to use it. Most of the time, it was quicker to go round rather than orbiting waiting for clearance.
I don't know LAX at all, but does it have:
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?
Different solution for different problem - a comparison with anywhere else is largely academic.
I was a regular user of the Luton VFR route, but it became increasingly more difficult to get clearance to use it. Most of the time, it was quicker to go round rather than orbiting waiting for clearance.
I don't know LAX at all, but does it have:
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?
Different solution for different problem - a comparison with anywhere else is largely academic.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Can everyone who wants a VFR route across the Heathrow zone do some research into the arrival and departure routes and come up with a route that works without as someone said earlier ATC having to move heavy metal?
I don't know LAX at all, but does it have:
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?
LHR's weather
London Heliroutes
Northolt next door
half a dozen or more very busy GA airfields dotted around its perimeter?
Heli routes? I'm sure there are more heli movements in the LA basin that probably the whole of the UK.
GA airfields: This should give some idea of the airfields around LAX (plus loads more not "arrowed" on the chart):
In fact, I have just looked through all the SIDs and STARs for LHR and cannot see one which would prevent low level VFR traffic transiting heathrow.......Unless you have other information to the contrary DFC?
Even the MAPs call for "climb staright ahead to 2000/3000" before the turn, so I cant even see a problem there...?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Ok DFC, just for grins I'll give it a go. I haven't looked at the LHR plates but I'm assuming the ILS is a 3deg glideslope. It doesn't appear to me that other airfields would conflict as there really aren't that many in that area.
VFR transitions would go through a roughly N-S corridor approx 0.5 miles off the approach end of the runway in use. Transition 2000ft AGL, Mode C transponder required. Of course, this would be moot if the surface area was smaller than it is, as then you would just fly around it. If you say it will never work I will refer you to several places where it does.
So, now you tell me why LHR needs such a large surface area.
Droopystop, no offence, but you are quite correct. You don't know LAX at all
VFR transitions would go through a roughly N-S corridor approx 0.5 miles off the approach end of the runway in use. Transition 2000ft AGL, Mode C transponder required. Of course, this would be moot if the surface area was smaller than it is, as then you would just fly around it. If you say it will never work I will refer you to several places where it does.
So, now you tell me why LHR needs such a large surface area.
Droopystop, no offence, but you are quite correct. You don't know LAX at all
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
The problems are of course set out above, but it all comes down to the fact that it is Class A.
I could get more across the aerodrome if it was Class D. One of the other problems of course is that whilst we can separate visually in the vicinity of an aerodrome, we would have to phone arrivals or departures regarding the traffic so that traffic info can be passed. Sometimes it is simply too busy for that.
What about the congested areas on the ground - anything east of LHR is pretty built up is it not?
If it were Class D, we could even have more than one aircraft routeing BUR-ASCOT at a time!
I could get more across the aerodrome if it was Class D. One of the other problems of course is that whilst we can separate visually in the vicinity of an aerodrome, we would have to phone arrivals or departures regarding the traffic so that traffic info can be passed. Sometimes it is simply too busy for that.
What about the congested areas on the ground - anything east of LHR is pretty built up is it not?
If it were Class D, we could even have more than one aircraft routeing BUR-ASCOT at a time!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
From: Middle Earth
Go on then, tell us. As I asked before "how many heavy jets are moved around at 1000' just to the north and south of Heathrow?" I have no idea, but I'm sure there must be a way of fitting in GA traffic without conflicting with heavy metal.
FC
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: SX in SX in UK
I flew into Heathrow (as a pax) last night in a BA 767. It had a GPS/moving map in the seatback display so I was able to monitor our progress.
We were put in the Biggin stack at 17:00 as they were changing runway direction at the time. We left the stack at 7000', I guess thats actually FL70, heading west, descending and about 5-6 miles south of Heathrow.
South abeam Heathrow, we were at about 4000', the screen display keeps changing and you only get a snapshot every minute or two.
We turned from base to finals at 12miles, which put us about a mile east of White Waltham and were probably about No. 5 to land.
The zone has to be quite long to accomodate 5 aircraft on finals, maybe it doesn't need to be quite as wide.
If there was a north-south VFR 'tunnel' over Heathrow, say from 1500' to 2500' and 2 miles wide, wouldn't that cause a problem to any jets that have to go-around?
We were put in the Biggin stack at 17:00 as they were changing runway direction at the time. We left the stack at 7000', I guess thats actually FL70, heading west, descending and about 5-6 miles south of Heathrow.
South abeam Heathrow, we were at about 4000', the screen display keeps changing and you only get a snapshot every minute or two.
We turned from base to finals at 12miles, which put us about a mile east of White Waltham and were probably about No. 5 to land.
The zone has to be quite long to accomodate 5 aircraft on finals, maybe it doesn't need to be quite as wide.
If there was a north-south VFR 'tunnel' over Heathrow, say from 1500' to 2500' and 2 miles wide, wouldn't that cause a problem to any jets that have to go-around?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Kolibear is quite correct - go aronds would be an issue. Whilst go-arounds are not exactly an emergency situation, the Arrivals controller has to talk to the Deps controller to see where the outbound is going.
They then need to talk to TC Heathrow for a heading and level.
There then needs to be deconfliction with Low Level SVFR traffic and Northolt. All whilst continuing to control traffic streaming in.
As for the size of the zone boundary - you will be amazed at the number of times that older Heavies off LHR only just make the required level of 3000ft by Epsom to the South! (some don't!)
They then need to talk to TC Heathrow for a heading and level.
There then needs to be deconfliction with Low Level SVFR traffic and Northolt. All whilst continuing to control traffic streaming in.
As for the size of the zone boundary - you will be amazed at the number of times that older Heavies off LHR only just make the required level of 3000ft by Epsom to the South! (some don't!)
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
The go-arounds may be an issue, however to cite my example of LAX how do they get away with it? VFR traffic directly overhead at 2500, 3500 and 4500.....
I suppose with this 2500' route you are talking to LAX tower, who clear you through literally just before you reach the Bravo boundary (pretty much at the runways). In the case of a go-around, maybe that clearance would be different, though at 3500' you have VFR traffic not in communication with anyone.One method would be to stop go-around traffic from climbing above 2000' until past LHR and have the VFR route set at 2500'. Looking at the SIDs and STARs the traffic mostly climbs straight out to 3000/4000' before turning, so no conflict would exist for arriving and departing traffic during normal operations.
The idea of a VFR corridor would be different from SVFR traffic in that it would mean low workload for the controllers, and easy access by VFR pilots. Again citing LAX's example, to use the special flight rules area (i.e. not in comms with ATC) you must sqwark 1201 and make blind calls on a unicom frequency, transit North at one level and South at another. You could extend the VFR corridor over Northholt as well.
The main thing is that this would be a "VFR" corridor, so not available in dodgey weather. Missed approaches are less likely in good weather (we landed in some crap on Sunday) I would also assume.
I suppose with this 2500' route you are talking to LAX tower, who clear you through literally just before you reach the Bravo boundary (pretty much at the runways). In the case of a go-around, maybe that clearance would be different, though at 3500' you have VFR traffic not in communication with anyone.One method would be to stop go-around traffic from climbing above 2000' until past LHR and have the VFR route set at 2500'. Looking at the SIDs and STARs the traffic mostly climbs straight out to 3000/4000' before turning, so no conflict would exist for arriving and departing traffic during normal operations.
The idea of a VFR corridor would be different from SVFR traffic in that it would mean low workload for the controllers, and easy access by VFR pilots. Again citing LAX's example, to use the special flight rules area (i.e. not in comms with ATC) you must sqwark 1201 and make blind calls on a unicom frequency, transit North at one level and South at another. You could extend the VFR corridor over Northholt as well.
The main thing is that this would be a "VFR" corridor, so not available in dodgey weather. Missed approaches are less likely in good weather (we landed in some crap on Sunday) I would also assume.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Is there an element that the width is due to a need to be able to regularly vary routings, and thus avoid any particular neighbourhood having continuous 24/7 aircraft noise?
I get as irate about the amount of controlled airspace in the UK as anybody else, but if a lot of it is to reduce annoyance to the non-flying public, I can at-least see some point in it.
G
I get as irate about the amount of controlled airspace in the UK as anybody else, but if a lot of it is to reduce annoyance to the non-flying public, I can at-least see some point in it.
G
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Personnally, I would be happy for MORE CAS (well, Delta at least) in the UK with the implementation of proper VFR corridors with no ATC clearance required. It serves two purpose, a) to protect IFR traffic (a good thing) and b) wouldn't impact on the VFR community.
cheers
cheers
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Just a small point on comparisons with the USA, and that's the weather.
I'm absolutely all for as much freedom for GA as possible. But how useful would a USA-style VFR corridor be? Englishal gives the example of the LAX corridor, with flights at up to 4500'. I'm not sure there are too many days when a VFR flight along a pre-determined route at 4500' would be possible. Or even 2500', for that matter. I spend lots of time flying VFR at or below 2000' because of clouds higher than that level.
Would people be tempted to push through the corridor regardless, if such a corridor were to exist???
FFF
---------------
I'm absolutely all for as much freedom for GA as possible. But how useful would a USA-style VFR corridor be? Englishal gives the example of the LAX corridor, with flights at up to 4500'. I'm not sure there are too many days when a VFR flight along a pre-determined route at 4500' would be possible. Or even 2500', for that matter. I spend lots of time flying VFR at or below 2000' because of clouds higher than that level.
Would people be tempted to push through the corridor regardless, if such a corridor were to exist???
FFF
---------------
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
FFF that's another very good point.
OK then - lets start with a blankish piece of paper.
Here are the current ATZ's that need to be avoided...
here are the SID's as they stand for Westerlies (drawn by hand so approximantely correct)
and here are Easterlies (the SID drawn that finishes left is the CPT SID, which is always given a heading and a level - often further to the left of that track, as it has to be knitted into the BIG/OCK traffic descending downwind)
And finally, rough routeing of Northolt inbounds. (they also have circuit traffic and outbounds of course!)
So - let's assume that Class D is granted (yipppeee!!!) - anyone want to suggest a route and a level? (I will draw your suggestions on for you and explain any potential conflictions)
OK then - lets start with a blankish piece of paper.
Here are the current ATZ's that need to be avoided...
here are the SID's as they stand for Westerlies (drawn by hand so approximantely correct)
and here are Easterlies (the SID drawn that finishes left is the CPT SID, which is always given a heading and a level - often further to the left of that track, as it has to be knitted into the BIG/OCK traffic descending downwind)
And finally, rough routeing of Northolt inbounds. (they also have circuit traffic and outbounds of course!)
So - let's assume that Class D is granted (yipppeee!!!
) - anyone want to suggest a route and a level? (I will draw your suggestions on for you and explain any potential conflictions)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
FFF
I would agree with you. Because of the UK airspace structure and licensing there seems to be a casual approach in GA in switching between VFR and IFR flying (for appropriately rated pilots in suitable aircraft) which could lead to people pushing through VFR corridors in IMC weather. In addition, my experience of flying in the NY TRACON area is that popup IFR clearances are readily accommodated whereas the infrastructure doesn't really seem available to do this in the UK - putting more pressure on people pushing through a VFR corridor in sub-VMC conditions.
I agree with the general principle of Englishal and others that the US airspace structure (and possibly the technology) seem to allow the control to happen in a smaller controlled area with more ability to handle transits of this smaller airspace. However, on the flip side there is technology (the mode-C veil and probably other behind the scene systems), considerably greater class D airspace (around every airport with a tower) but much greater flexibility to access this airspace (just two way contact for class D) and Class E 'everywhere' which requires a clearance to enter IFR - so none of this IFR in IMC without any ATC service or ATC having to attempt to provide ATSOCA to IFR traffic.
It is a very different system and I suspect that to get close to the US flexible control model there would need to be a strong push to chuck out the entire basis of UK airspace and start again.
I would agree with you. Because of the UK airspace structure and licensing there seems to be a casual approach in GA in switching between VFR and IFR flying (for appropriately rated pilots in suitable aircraft) which could lead to people pushing through VFR corridors in IMC weather. In addition, my experience of flying in the NY TRACON area is that popup IFR clearances are readily accommodated whereas the infrastructure doesn't really seem available to do this in the UK - putting more pressure on people pushing through a VFR corridor in sub-VMC conditions.
I agree with the general principle of Englishal and others that the US airspace structure (and possibly the technology) seem to allow the control to happen in a smaller controlled area with more ability to handle transits of this smaller airspace. However, on the flip side there is technology (the mode-C veil and probably other behind the scene systems), considerably greater class D airspace (around every airport with a tower) but much greater flexibility to access this airspace (just two way contact for class D) and Class E 'everywhere' which requires a clearance to enter IFR - so none of this IFR in IMC without any ATC service or ATC having to attempt to provide ATSOCA to IFR traffic.
It is a very different system and I suspect that to get close to the US flexible control model there would need to be a strong push to chuck out the entire basis of UK airspace and start again.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I think that if this a "VFR only" route, "Mode C required, sqwarking 7001" then it would be adheared to. ....or it should be, blatantly breaking the rules should have serious repocussions.
Besides, it could even be broadcast on an ATIS somewhere, "Heathrow VFR route open" or "Heathrow VFR route not available".
As for routing, directly N or South at 2500 should work?
Besides, it could even be broadcast on an ATIS somewhere, "Heathrow VFR route open" or "Heathrow VFR route not available".
As for routing, directly N or South at 2500 should work?