Why so much Class A around Heathrow?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loking at the diagram and recent changes to the European Airspace Structure, it seems likely that N = Class C (with no VFR above FL200 as per ICAO SARPS).
Since U is class G, the only class left open to debate is the K.
Will it be class E (communication not always required eg VFR) with a requirement for appropriate transponder?
However, it seems clear that the London TMA and the London CTR will probably end up class C removing the requirement to separate VFR transits from VFR transits but keeping the requirement to separate them from the IFR flights.
Just one other observation. This topc generated lots of suggestions and questions. The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though.
Regards,
DFC
Since U is class G, the only class left open to debate is the K.
Will it be class E (communication not always required eg VFR) with a requirement for appropriate transponder?
However, it seems clear that the London TMA and the London CTR will probably end up class C removing the requirement to separate VFR transits from VFR transits but keeping the requirement to separate them from the IFR flights.
Just one other observation. This topc generated lots of suggestions and questions. The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may not be the most strict of truths, and certainly I hope somebody can provide a reference to confirm or refute it, but I was led to believe that the new airspace structure wouldn't fit into the current ICAO airspace classifications.
I had once assumed the same as DFC, in that Class 'N' would be provided in reality by Class C, etc. However, a chappie I once spoke to who really ought to know about such things declared that this was not so. Class 'N' really will be Class N, likewise for 'K' and 'U'. In essence, a completely new structure with the rules of operation created to suit.
For anyone who doesn't understand DFC's reference to Class C above FL195, there is an old consultation paper here. However even that seems to hint at using Class C above FL195 merely as a standard, cross-nation stopgap until the complete, joined-up SES becomes a reality.
I would be interested to know what the real intentions are w.r.t. the airspace classifications. If only because the United States, over many years, have been pressured by the wider aviation community to adopt all the ICAO standards. Over time they adopted the Class A-G airspace classifications, and even adopted the standardised TAF format (although they still insist on using different units of distance). For Europe to then abandon the ICAO airspace classifications and 'do our own thing' seems to me to be somewhat counter to the ideals of global harmonisation.
I also have a slightly cyncial doubt that the new airspace structure won't reduce, in some way, the freedoms currently enjoyed by some sectors of the European aviation fraternity - but that's another issue.
Just curious,
DA
I had once assumed the same as DFC, in that Class 'N' would be provided in reality by Class C, etc. However, a chappie I once spoke to who really ought to know about such things declared that this was not so. Class 'N' really will be Class N, likewise for 'K' and 'U'. In essence, a completely new structure with the rules of operation created to suit.
For anyone who doesn't understand DFC's reference to Class C above FL195, there is an old consultation paper here. However even that seems to hint at using Class C above FL195 merely as a standard, cross-nation stopgap until the complete, joined-up SES becomes a reality.
I would be interested to know what the real intentions are w.r.t. the airspace classifications. If only because the United States, over many years, have been pressured by the wider aviation community to adopt all the ICAO standards. Over time they adopted the Class A-G airspace classifications, and even adopted the standardised TAF format (although they still insist on using different units of distance). For Europe to then abandon the ICAO airspace classifications and 'do our own thing' seems to me to be somewhat counter to the ideals of global harmonisation.
I also have a slightly cyncial doubt that the new airspace structure won't reduce, in some way, the freedoms currently enjoyed by some sectors of the European aviation fraternity - but that's another issue.
Just curious,
DA
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC writes:
"The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though."
I presume by that you mean me.
I'm not an AOPA man, clown - apart from being a member. I don't speak for them, I have no official function, although like thousands of others I support their aims and I give them a break on publishing their magazine.
Your conclusion-jumping and comfortably anonymous snide claptrap does you no credit. I don't speak for them, I speak for me. No suggestion about the airspace? Have someone who can read run through it again with you.
"The response from the AOPA man displayed why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation. Yak Yak Yak - pleasure flights - business flights - yak yak yak. BA and BM through their business employ more people than the whole of GA. That business - pleasure argument is a waste of smelly air. No suggestion about the airspace though."
I presume by that you mean me.
I'm not an AOPA man, clown - apart from being a member. I don't speak for them, I have no official function, although like thousands of others I support their aims and I give them a break on publishing their magazine.
Your conclusion-jumping and comfortably anonymous snide claptrap does you no credit. I don't speak for them, I speak for me. No suggestion about the airspace? Have someone who can read run through it again with you.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat, you miss the point.
Statements like;
"We all agree that the leisure fliers who use Heathrow (and more than 70 percent of them are flying for fun) need protection from general aviation (where more than 70 percent of movements are business-related or flight training). But we don't have the balance right.". Do nothing for GA's cause in cases such as these.
and "we" do not agree!
Regards,
DFC
Statements like;
"We all agree that the leisure fliers who use Heathrow (and more than 70 percent of them are flying for fun) need protection from general aviation (where more than 70 percent of movements are business-related or flight training). But we don't have the balance right.". Do nothing for GA's cause in cases such as these.
and "we" do not agree!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle,
Shortly thereafter the 3 become 2 in the grand scheme. (Known and Unknown or some such)
Back to my Mode S comment. If everything is required to have Mode S then ATS will accurately know the position of everything that flies. The only other factor is whether its intentions are known to ATS. As that can only have two possible answers, there can only be two possible classes of airspace. There cannot be any Class U and class K has to go to the surface. So sounds to me that one hand of some regulator doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
Shortly thereafter the 3 become 2 in the grand scheme. (Known and Unknown or some such)
Back to my Mode S comment. If everything is required to have Mode S then ATS will accurately know the position of everything that flies. The only other factor is whether its intentions are known to ATS. As that can only have two possible answers, there can only be two possible classes of airspace. There cannot be any Class U and class K has to go to the surface. So sounds to me that one hand of some regulator doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC:
What the hell has my comment got to do with whether or not you join AOPA? My response is "why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation"? What sort of random drivel is that?
What the hell has my comment got to do with whether or not you join AOPA? My response is "why many of us doubt the sense in supporting such an organisation"? What sort of random drivel is that?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slim, we did discuss this a while ago here
So it may be that ICAO are changing the rules rather than Eurocontrol -- so the US will have to change too if they want to be ICAO compliant (or file a difference
)
So it may be that ICAO are changing the rules rather than Eurocontrol -- so the US will have to change too if they want to be ICAO compliant (or file a difference
)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't read old threads because I probably said something stupid. Well, if the airspace proposed is an ICAO thing, at least the Americans already have something similar so it wont need to change much over there.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There cannot be any Class U and class K has to go to the surface
That depends on what a particular country decides to do with aircraft such as microlights, powered parachutes and the likes.
Remember that there is a process moving down the road of deregulating single seat microlights. If they are deregulated then they will not have mode S.
Thus to cater for those pilots, it would be impossible to have no airspace where uncertified unregulated airfraft could operate.
Of course such unregulated aircraft would be limited to say that country's airspace.
That I believe is why the provision is in there. Of course some countries may decide not to use it and ground everything without mode S - but some will not. The choice is available.
Regards,
DFC
That depends on what a particular country decides to do with aircraft such as microlights, powered parachutes and the likes.
Remember that there is a process moving down the road of deregulating single seat microlights. If they are deregulated then they will not have mode S.
Thus to cater for those pilots, it would be impossible to have no airspace where uncertified unregulated airfraft could operate.
Of course such unregulated aircraft would be limited to say that country's airspace.
That I believe is why the provision is in there. Of course some countries may decide not to use it and ground everything without mode S - but some will not. The choice is available.
Regards,
DFC
