Why so much Class A around Heathrow?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Yes, it's VFR only. I'm not one for dragging pilots over the coals but if they took a chance and it wasn't VMC I'd have their licence. Clearance required also, although I don't think there is any problem with go arounds in VFR with mode C, the controller will need to be in control.
Those are great diagrams AlanM, thanks for taking the time to draw them. I think they bear out englishal's claim that there is no jet traffic at 1000ft just north and south of Heathrow. What is the minimum climb gradient you expect/require when departing?
Those are great diagrams AlanM, thanks for taking the time to draw them. I think they bear out englishal's claim that there is no jet traffic at 1000ft just north and south of Heathrow. What is the minimum climb gradient you expect/require when departing?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Min climb out is 243ft/nm
As I said - not everyone makes that.
How often can you guarentee level at 2500ft?
Also, IF there was a go-around - it may be stuck below the VFR crosser, and end up going outside CAS north towards Elstree or Mig Alley nr Ockham.
I am not saying it is impossible - just hard!
As I said - not everyone makes that.
How often can you guarentee level at 2500ft?
Also, IF there was a go-around - it may be stuck below the VFR crosser, and end up going outside CAS north towards Elstree or Mig Alley nr Ockham.
I am not saying it is impossible - just hard!
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1997
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 3,231
Likes: 21
From: Europe
"Mode C required, sqwarking 7001"
I agree that the UK should take the best of various airspace systems throughout the world and adopt them for UK conditions, wherever they might be from. I also think that the glide clear rule is an important one to consider for any corridor, with as much weight as any 'separation' problems. Time for that clean sheet of paper is well overdue !!
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: England
As I presume everyone is talking about light singles it is interesting that noone has mentioned 'Rule 5'. By my reckoning you would need to be able to glide about 3-4nm to abide, which puts any suggested route for your average spam can at about 3000' minimum.
Personally I am not convinced of a need to endanger commercial traffic because someone thinks it would be fun to fly over LHR. And before anyone criticises me on that one, it certainly wouldn't make it safer, and more planes in the area must by default increase the risk of an incident/accident.
Besides, there is always plenty of VFR traffic in the various control zones in the south east. On a good VFR day I normally hear a couple of infringements a day whilst out flying.
It would also be a great opportunity for terrorists to access the airport.....
Personally I am not convinced of a need to endanger commercial traffic because someone thinks it would be fun to fly over LHR. And before anyone criticises me on that one, it certainly wouldn't make it safer, and more planes in the area must by default increase the risk of an incident/accident.
Besides, there is always plenty of VFR traffic in the various control zones in the south east. On a good VFR day I normally hear a couple of infringements a day whilst out flying.
It would also be a great opportunity for terrorists to access the airport.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bit controversial but given the rate of CAS infringements in the London area, four serious ones today alone, can GA be trusted to cope with any such corridor were it to exist? The benefit of the doubt is not there at the moment.
Alan, you've missed out the CPT departure on easterlies which does a 180deg turn on departure and will happily take out any transitting VFR traffic.
If the route was at 3,000ft or above where would the VFR traffic coming from the south climb to that altitude or from the north descend without also affecting Gatwick departures? Same on the north side with Northolt airways arrivals and departures and Luton traffic.
With the current Heathrow, Gatwick, Northolt, Luton route structures and interaction there simply isn't, imho, any workable options.
If you want to route north/south over Heathrow, buy a helicopter
WF.
Alan, you've missed out the CPT departure on easterlies which does a 180deg turn on departure and will happily take out any transitting VFR traffic.
If the route was at 3,000ft or above where would the VFR traffic coming from the south climb to that altitude or from the north descend without also affecting Gatwick departures? Same on the north side with Northolt airways arrivals and departures and Luton traffic.
With the current Heathrow, Gatwick, Northolt, Luton route structures and interaction there simply isn't, imho, any workable options.
If you want to route north/south over Heathrow, buy a helicopter
WF.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Mike I thought I had mentioned that above the Easterly SID graphic.
Oh - and on the Easterlies SID map:
The part of the Heliroute H3 between THORPE and TEDDINGTON is closed as it is not spearated from departure. Also, H9 needs a "southbound check" put on for southerly departures.
Ironically - Heathrow is the only CTR I have ever heard of that has a separate frequency and controller for the low level traffic. This is a huge drain on resources at TC - and at airports like Stansted you are just told to remain outside CAS if they are busy.
I think that each flight would need so much co-ordination it would be a drain on resources, and detract from the primary task of the ATCO. (shifting the IFR paying traffic).
As said above, I will agree to the controlversial statement that there are far too many people who fly and have difficulty flight planning and avoiding CTRs who couldn't be trusted to follow the rules and exact routeing.
There are enough helicopters that get it wrong just now - and questionable flying like the LCY diversion last week.
Sorry - back to the "far too difficult" tray me thinks - just to get people the opportunity to fly over heathrow.
Oh - and on the Easterlies SID map:
The part of the Heliroute H3 between THORPE and TEDDINGTON is closed as it is not spearated from departure. Also, H9 needs a "southbound check" put on for southerly departures.
Ironically - Heathrow is the only CTR I have ever heard of that has a separate frequency and controller for the low level traffic. This is a huge drain on resources at TC - and at airports like Stansted you are just told to remain outside CAS if they are busy.
I think that each flight would need so much co-ordination it would be a drain on resources, and detract from the primary task of the ATCO. (shifting the IFR paying traffic).
As said above, I will agree to the controlversial statement that there are far too many people who fly and have difficulty flight planning and avoiding CTRs who couldn't be trusted to follow the rules and exact routeing.
There are enough helicopters that get it wrong just now - and questionable flying like the LCY diversion last week.
Sorry - back to the "far too difficult" tray me thinks - just to get people the opportunity to fly over heathrow.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Would it be stating the obvious that the SIDs etc at the American airports are probably designed in the first place to allow the VFR transits?
As regards poor navigation, I am sure the average Yank in his wrecked C172 is no better at map reading than the average Brit in his wrecked C172. This is why the Yanks need to be in 2-way radio contact and carry a Mode C. You won't have problems with nav if you mandate radio contact and Mode C.
What the UK does have is a strong culture of either not carrying or - often with an instructor aboard - switching OFF the transponder.
Plus a culture of flying non-radio, encouraged entirely understandably by having "services" such as London Info which offers zero useful traffic service. PPL students are heavily trained to call up London Info to practice their radio calls, and I bet that most of those (few) that hang in there post-PPL give up on this as soon as they start going places, realising it's just work for nothing. If pilots were able to get a radar service they would use the radio more and there would be an opportunity to prevent potential infringements.
The UK anti-GPS culture, which I am convinced is a major cause of stupid nav errors, will also take a very long time to wear off.
As regards poor navigation, I am sure the average Yank in his wrecked C172 is no better at map reading than the average Brit in his wrecked C172. This is why the Yanks need to be in 2-way radio contact and carry a Mode C. You won't have problems with nav if you mandate radio contact and Mode C.
What the UK does have is a strong culture of either not carrying or - often with an instructor aboard - switching OFF the transponder.
Plus a culture of flying non-radio, encouraged entirely understandably by having "services" such as London Info which offers zero useful traffic service. PPL students are heavily trained to call up London Info to practice their radio calls, and I bet that most of those (few) that hang in there post-PPL give up on this as soon as they start going places, realising it's just work for nothing. If pilots were able to get a radar service they would use the radio more and there would be an opportunity to prevent potential infringements.
The UK anti-GPS culture, which I am convinced is a major cause of stupid nav errors, will also take a very long time to wear off.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
Must admit when I wrote my 05/23 comment I hadn't taken Gatwick or Luton into account 
Lots of talk about LAX, but would a better comparison be JFK?
There are three large CAT airports within that region as well as a large conurbation -- similar to the Heathrow/Gatwick/Luton(Stansted) congestion we have here.
Do JFK allow VFR transits?
Lots of talk about LAX, but would a better comparison be JFK?
There are three large CAT airports within that region as well as a large conurbation -- similar to the Heathrow/Gatwick/Luton(Stansted) congestion we have here.
Do JFK allow VFR transits?
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,402
Likes: 858
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
anyone want to suggest a route and a level
FOS to CHT. Northerly at 1500 ft LTMA QNH, southerly at 2000 ft LTMA QNH. But I haven't checked any Rule 5 'glide clear' problems that might cause.
SVFR in Class A. Although that would be a problem for non-IMC rated pilots due to their licence privilege restrictions unless a 'notified' route limit was applied. I suggest 5 km.
Mandatory SSR with Mode C.
FOS to CHT. Northerly at 1500 ft LTMA QNH, southerly at 2000 ft LTMA QNH. But I haven't checked any Rule 5 'glide clear' problems that might cause.
SVFR in Class A. Although that would be a problem for non-IMC rated pilots due to their licence privilege restrictions unless a 'notified' route limit was applied. I suggest 5 km.
Mandatory SSR with Mode C.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
From: Outlawed
It would also be a great opportunity for terrorists to access the airport.....
Perhaps it would just be easier to ban all GA movements altogether, thus denying terrorists a 'tool' which they've never considered using.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Personally I am not convinced of a need to endanger commercial traffic because someone thinks it would be fun to fly over LHR.
I would have thought that having VFR corridors would aid safety. If its a case of go through the corridor or skirt close to CAS which may likely cause infringements. Even in the USA you often don't have to talk to anyone to go through these routes. Maybe US pilots have better training than ones over here?
Pretty much all US airports have these routes, I haven't got the info but I think JFK also have a published route, though you must be in comms with ATC and transponding a certain code within 25nm.
Oh well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so I give up.
At New York's JFK International, landing fees are based on gross weight, and pilots pay $2.95 per 1,000 pounds gross weight.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
The way I look at it, small planes were here before jets and all this surface area just gets in the way, however I recognise that there has to be some to protect large airports. If LHR didn't have such a huge surface area then it would be moot as we would just fly around it.
rustle, New York doesn't really compare with London. EWR, JFK and LGA are much closer together than LHR, LTN, STN and LGW. And anyway, as you asked there is a VFR corridor up the Hudson river, and if you don't like that you can fly over the top.
There are Class E VFR corridors through the Class B at San Diego. No radio contact is required with SOCAL or SAN tower to fly these, and they obviously don't cause a problem with the jets. Mode C required of course so jets on a go around know where they are and controllers can do what they are trained to do.
AlanM, this is good stuff, nice to see controllers explaining things to us small fry. That climb gradient is pathetic, I could probably beat that in a fully loaded C150. I will have to read up on things before my next question...
(edited to replace transition with corridor, as you don't actually transit Class B in New York, you fly under it)
rustle, New York doesn't really compare with London. EWR, JFK and LGA are much closer together than LHR, LTN, STN and LGW. And anyway, as you asked there is a VFR corridor up the Hudson river, and if you don't like that you can fly over the top.
There are Class E VFR corridors through the Class B at San Diego. No radio contact is required with SOCAL or SAN tower to fly these, and they obviously don't cause a problem with the jets. Mode C required of course so jets on a go around know where they are and controllers can do what they are trained to do.
AlanM, this is good stuff, nice to see controllers explaining things to us small fry. That climb gradient is pathetic, I could probably beat that in a fully loaded C150. I will have to read up on things before my next question...
(edited to replace transition with corridor, as you don't actually transit Class B in New York, you fly under it)
Last edited by slim_slag; 10th November 2005 at 09:18.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alan,
The two southbound SIDs you've drawn to me are the SAM and MID. The CPT dep, if it were to fly the SID rather than be given headings, makes a sharp 180deg right turn on dep from 09R and goes WOD then CPT. It may be vectored on that track or it may be taken a bit further south depending on the arriving traffic.
englishal,
I'd argue that there's next to no time to be saved for anybody by just having a corridor over Heathrow. Whether you fly round the zone to get from A to B or use a corridor there's a fair amount of dog legging to be done and any time or mileage saved is almost insignificant.
The only corridor that would make any sense to me is one that starts south of Gatwick and ends north of Luton and so would represent a true time and hassle saving route for anyone on a significant cross-country rather than just a bimble in the London area.
BEagle,
That would really be a non starter, especially if you want it to be Class A and SVFR. There's no acceptable separation there from easterly arrivals or westerley departures and missed approaches so the airport would pretty much stop with anything on that route (as it does when folk try doing it without a clearance occasionaly)
Any route would really have to go directly over the airfield.
slim,
The London Zone has been reduced in size over the years, it used to extend at least a couple of miles further east and west a number of years ago.
It is unlikely to reduce further to the east nor to the north while Northolt is open. To the south even some modern jets barely stay inside CAS as they depart. If there was to be any reduction it would probably only be possible by another mile or two to the west.
What the Zone needs is a re-classification from A to something else more multi user friendly.
WF.
Mike I thought I had mentioned that above the Easterly SID graphic.
englishal,
It's not a case of "Fun to fly over LHR", although it may be a for a few times, its a case of getting from A to B in the most economical, most direct route. I gather that many GA pilots in the UK are simply "bimblers" who are happy to go up for an hour and view their house again from 1500'. There are some though who would actually like to use an aircraft as a means of transport, and these VFR corridors would allow this (lets apply this to Class D zones as well).
The only corridor that would make any sense to me is one that starts south of Gatwick and ends north of Luton and so would represent a true time and hassle saving route for anyone on a significant cross-country rather than just a bimble in the London area.
BEagle,
FOS to CHT. Northerly at 1500 ft LTMA QNH, southerly at 2000 ft LTMA QNH. But I haven't checked any Rule 5 'glide clear' problems that might cause.
Any route would really have to go directly over the airfield.
slim,
The way I look at it, small planes were here before jets and all this surface area just gets in the way, however I recognise that there has to be some to protect large airports. If LHR didn't have such a huge surface area then it would be moot as we would just fly around it.
It is unlikely to reduce further to the east nor to the north while Northolt is open. To the south even some modern jets barely stay inside CAS as they depart. If there was to be any reduction it would probably only be possible by another mile or two to the west.
What the Zone needs is a re-classification from A to something else more multi user friendly.
WF.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
OK, have taken a look at TERPS and it has an even lower required climb gradient than AlanM says is in use at heathrow. So, taking my earlier question about O'Hare with it's 6nm surface area, from my amateur hack reading it appears to be possible by TERPS for an aircraft to depart O'Hare and then leave the Class B at less than 1500ft AGL.
But then it will enter Class E, which is still controlled, so visibility minima apply. There is also a requirement to have a mode C within 30nm, so any light traffic will be squawking altitude.
The FAA are quite happy with VFR and IFR aircraft being in Class E together with only one talking to a controller, and it would appear to be a possibility at O'Hare. There are lots of Mode C regulations though which mean in practice the light aircraft will be visible on radar or TCAS. In practice most turbines climb out at rather more than 200ft/nm, so it is pretty unlikely that you will be flying around ORD in your spamcan and meet a departing 777 head on.
Heathrow surface area has been designed to keep VFR traffic away from IFR traffic full stop, which is why it is so large (to my amateur mind). In also seems that it might be even more dangerous at LHR, as AlanM says some heavies don't make the required climb, and they could meet a light aircraft without a Mode C transponder on as it's not required.
Difference in attitude by respective regulators, which is what others had said, and probably isn't going to change. Interesting thread which makes one think about it. Seems Mode C is a crucial technical regulatory difference.
But then it will enter Class E, which is still controlled, so visibility minima apply. There is also a requirement to have a mode C within 30nm, so any light traffic will be squawking altitude.
The FAA are quite happy with VFR and IFR aircraft being in Class E together with only one talking to a controller, and it would appear to be a possibility at O'Hare. There are lots of Mode C regulations though which mean in practice the light aircraft will be visible on radar or TCAS. In practice most turbines climb out at rather more than 200ft/nm, so it is pretty unlikely that you will be flying around ORD in your spamcan and meet a departing 777 head on.
Heathrow surface area has been designed to keep VFR traffic away from IFR traffic full stop, which is why it is so large (to my amateur mind). In also seems that it might be even more dangerous at LHR, as AlanM says some heavies don't make the required climb, and they could meet a light aircraft without a Mode C transponder on as it's not required.
Difference in attitude by respective regulators, which is what others had said, and probably isn't going to change. Interesting thread which makes one think about it. Seems Mode C is a crucial technical regulatory difference.
Guest
Posts: n/a
slim_slag,
Given the volume of protest over Mode S transponder carraige, I don't think there would be much support amongst the GA community for a simple Mode C veil either.
Regarding my thoughts about reducing the Zone size to the west, I doubt if there is actually room for it to come in much further at all actually given the ILS descent profile.
I still think a change in classification of the Zone from A to C or D is the best way forward.
WF.
Given the volume of protest over Mode S transponder carraige, I don't think there would be much support amongst the GA community for a simple Mode C veil either.
Regarding my thoughts about reducing the Zone size to the west, I doubt if there is actually room for it to come in much further at all actually given the ILS descent profile.
I still think a change in classification of the Zone from A to C or D is the best way forward.
WF.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Alan M,
Would it be too much to ask for you to draw both the Easterly and Westerly scenarios plus the missed approaches to all runways plus the procedural tracks that an R/T fail aircraft will fly from the hold to establish on the ILS for each runway.
The place to go for something like that on a nice big wall chart is actually an estate agent in Uxbridge - they get them from the council for noise reasons when BA Captains want to purchase a local pad to use pre-early morning departure!
The problem with allowing flights to transit a corridor with no R/T provided they have a mode C is - how can the non r/t pilot know that the mode C is actually working and how can ATC know that the level indicated is actually correct without verification.
The idea of a corridor from South of Gatwick to North of Luton would be interesting. Since most of the IFR routings below FL100 force pilots to route round the outer edges of the TMA and not just the LL zone, some IFR flights might be very interested in taking that short cut! (change to VFR for the period of the transit).
The comment about making the CTR class D I believe is going down the wrong road because it advertises something that may not actually be available (random routings at random levels by VFR flights).
However, the point regrding SVFR separation on the BUR-Ascott route brings me to a partial solution - Retain Class A airspace. However, establish a class D corridor or corridors from SR-30 to SS+30 each day along those routes. Basically everything would remain the same except for the requriement to separate SVFR flights even when the weather is VMC. Ease workload - increase capacity.
Make a pre-departure FPL and pre-departure slot time for the corridor mandatory (all done by an online computer booking system) and hey - ATC don't have to separate, can predict what the loading is and restrict it to a sensible level. Too much hassle? - But you do want this ability to transit LL zone for the benifits it gives in getting from A to B rather than a simple jolly/ freedom of the air issue don't you?
Regards,
DFC
Would it be too much to ask for you to draw both the Easterly and Westerly scenarios plus the missed approaches to all runways plus the procedural tracks that an R/T fail aircraft will fly from the hold to establish on the ILS for each runway.
The place to go for something like that on a nice big wall chart is actually an estate agent in Uxbridge - they get them from the council for noise reasons when BA Captains want to purchase a local pad to use pre-early morning departure!
The problem with allowing flights to transit a corridor with no R/T provided they have a mode C is - how can the non r/t pilot know that the mode C is actually working and how can ATC know that the level indicated is actually correct without verification.
The idea of a corridor from South of Gatwick to North of Luton would be interesting. Since most of the IFR routings below FL100 force pilots to route round the outer edges of the TMA and not just the LL zone, some IFR flights might be very interested in taking that short cut! (change to VFR for the period of the transit).
The comment about making the CTR class D I believe is going down the wrong road because it advertises something that may not actually be available (random routings at random levels by VFR flights).
However, the point regrding SVFR separation on the BUR-Ascott route brings me to a partial solution - Retain Class A airspace. However, establish a class D corridor or corridors from SR-30 to SS+30 each day along those routes. Basically everything would remain the same except for the requriement to separate SVFR flights even when the weather is VMC. Ease workload - increase capacity.
Make a pre-departure FPL and pre-departure slot time for the corridor mandatory (all done by an online computer booking system) and hey - ATC don't have to separate, can predict what the loading is and restrict it to a sensible level. Too much hassle? - But you do want this ability to transit LL zone for the benifits it gives in getting from A to B rather than a simple jolly/ freedom of the air issue don't you?
Regards,
DFC
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
From: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
DFC
I will try and do something later...... but the thing about the published missed approach is that it is often superceded by the deconflicting headings and levels that are needed to separate the go-around and departure.
As for the 3000ft transit - that would put you into the LTMA Class A CAS of course - and you can't only fly IFR there - so not only the zone but the LTMA would need changing.
Slim - you would be amazed at the lack of rate of climb! Wait for a hot day, with a wind NE and sit at OCK at 2.4A. See how the A340s scrape the zone at 2900/3000ft. (Some have A340s have kept 160kts until about 20nm into the SID to get a better ROC)
Mike - good point - I will get it drawn on.
I don't think that the FOS-CHT route would work - as all Northolt departures climb and maintain 3000ft initially. (there is no room to climb them early)
Any suggestions on Westerlies then?
OK - here\'s a thought:
If you either got rid of the SW corner (OCK-WOD) or made it Class D - it would help Farnborough out as they have a lot of traffic squeezed into the ILS area. (also little uses it and little environmental impact)
The zone to the E & W is 12nm from LHR. At the 8nm point to the WEST - make it Class D up to 1000ft or possibly 1500ft - allowing traffic to route BUR-ASCOT as they do now (at the moment of course we cannot have opposite direction traffic there)
All this would be fairly easy to implement.
Any other ideas?!?!!
I will try and do something later...... but the thing about the published missed approach is that it is often superceded by the deconflicting headings and levels that are needed to separate the go-around and departure.
As for the 3000ft transit - that would put you into the LTMA Class A CAS of course - and you can't only fly IFR there - so not only the zone but the LTMA would need changing.
Slim - you would be amazed at the lack of rate of climb! Wait for a hot day, with a wind NE and sit at OCK at 2.4A. See how the A340s scrape the zone at 2900/3000ft. (Some have A340s have kept 160kts until about 20nm into the SID to get a better ROC)
Mike - good point - I will get it drawn on.
I don't think that the FOS-CHT route would work - as all Northolt departures climb and maintain 3000ft initially. (there is no room to climb them early)
Any suggestions on Westerlies then?
OK - here\'s a thought:
If you either got rid of the SW corner (OCK-WOD) or made it Class D - it would help Farnborough out as they have a lot of traffic squeezed into the ILS area. (also little uses it and little environmental impact)
The zone to the E & W is 12nm from LHR. At the 8nm point to the WEST - make it Class D up to 1000ft or possibly 1500ft - allowing traffic to route BUR-ASCOT as they do now (at the moment of course we cannot have opposite direction traffic there)
All this would be fairly easy to implement.
Any other ideas?!?!!
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Middlesex
As a West Londoner and PPL the following is a suggestion only ( will probably be shot down ... but hey ho):
When LHR is on 27R/L arrivals
Not below 2000-2500' (ie passing over the top of inbounds & helis)
Utilising all open spaces to comply with rule 5 as best as possible although even then your options are limited
Route 1
Stanmore Station - Northwick Park - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 + GWR) - Hounslow Heath - Sunbury Lock
Route 2
Denham - Northolt Apt (Overhead) - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 +GWR) - Richmond - Caesars Camp
When LHR is on 27R/L arrivals
Not below 2000-2500' (ie passing over the top of inbounds & helis)
Utilising all open spaces to comply with rule 5 as best as possible although even then your options are limited
Route 1
Stanmore Station - Northwick Park - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 + GWR) - Hounslow Heath - Sunbury Lock
Route 2
Denham - Northolt Apt (Overhead) - Iron Bridge (A4020/A4127 +GWR) - Richmond - Caesars Camp
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
I can believe you AlanM, but is their rate of climb constant? How far out are they when they reach 2000AGL? There would be room there for VFR traffic to be beneath them at >1000AGL and give 500ft separation with the heavy (which is what I've had several times in US Class B).
WF, the problem as I see it with the Mode S deal is that it's being forced on people (probably by airlines in the background) and nothing is being given in return. In the US you can get a TIS, and as engishal recently showed, it's pretty good. So there is an incentive to put it into your spamcan.
There is a huge incentive to put Mode C into your US spamcan. It gives you access to huge amounts of Class E and is probably the biggest reason that US airspace is so accessible. It wouldn't be safe to have light aircraft in all that Class E without Mode C. It also makes it possible to shrink the Class B to reasonable dimensions as you have to have Mode C by regulation to fly close to it. I wouldn't be too sure that people round London would refuse to put Mode C in, if they got something like a US airspace structure in return.
People in Cornwall could carry on as they do now.
It will never happen of course.
WF, the problem as I see it with the Mode S deal is that it's being forced on people (probably by airlines in the background) and nothing is being given in return. In the US you can get a TIS, and as engishal recently showed, it's pretty good. So there is an incentive to put it into your spamcan.
There is a huge incentive to put Mode C into your US spamcan. It gives you access to huge amounts of Class E and is probably the biggest reason that US airspace is so accessible. It wouldn't be safe to have light aircraft in all that Class E without Mode C. It also makes it possible to shrink the Class B to reasonable dimensions as you have to have Mode C by regulation to fly close to it. I wouldn't be too sure that people round London would refuse to put Mode C in, if they got something like a US airspace structure in return.
People in Cornwall could carry on as they do now.
It will never happen of course.