How to get more controled airspace

[PPRuNe Radar]

I am caught between two stools here.

But I tend to fall on the side of the GA guys.

Firstly, I have heard the tales of operators insurers stating that it is RAS or nothing. In which case the policy is not worth the paper it is written on since that service can never ever be guaranteed anywhere. I have also seen the Ops Manuals of quite a few operators whose pilots have stated the same case and what the document actually says (in each one I have seen) is that the pilot must take advantage of the 'best service available' or words to that effect. If the best service (to aid an expeditious approach for example) is purely FIS, then that is what the Ops Manual allows ... and what the pilot should accept, or perish the thought, REQUEST. It's all down to intelligent interpretation ... and not blind acceptance. Maybe the problem is a generation of 250 hour ATPLs ???

I think my second point is that pilots of CAT are generally (with strong emphasis on the general part) ignorant of the various services ATC can provide and the restrictions placed on ATC within each in terms of separation, traffic information, etc. As mentioned, under a RAS, regardless of Met conditions, ATC need to aim for a separation standard regardless. With excellent vis and little cloud cover, any pilot knowing the rules and having been passed traffic information could quite safely 'downgrade' to a RIS and get his head out of the cockpit, look for, and avoid, the traffic. In Class G airspace, it's what he/she should be bloody well be doing anyway even if under a RAS. 'See and avoid' is the over arching rule for everyone. It makes no exceptions. If any CAT operators can't accept this ... then they should make the skies safer for us all and fly in airspace where cotton wool ATC is given ... i.e. CAS of Class C or above (Class E and Class D will still allow VFRs with no 'standard' separation applied.) Alternatively ... wait until all of the route can be flown in CAS.

Finally ... some areas have a good case for more CAS ... others not so. It is for each airfield or operator to make it's relevant case which the CAA will then judge on its merits. What the CAA will look for is for the minimum amount of airspace to be granted to facilitate the safe conduct of flights of traffic in and around the airspace, if it is justified. The fact that those who can't make the case then encounter GA traffic and have to get out of their way sometimes (either because legally the have to in accordance with the Rules of The Air, or because the ATC service they are receiving requires them to) is a fact of life. GA traffic can also cite instances where their ops are hampered by commercial operations. It's a quid pro quo.

I'm afraid the 'Sun' headline stuff about 'ambulance flight delayed by light aircraft' cuts no ice here. Who is to say that the GA aircraft didn't have right of way ... was unsure of position and the pilot panicking a bit ..... had a sick passenger on board who was not used to flying .... was running short of fuel ..... had a dodgy alternator ...... etc, etc, etc, etc. No one ... that's who. If there's a real problem with priority, get the ambulance flight in high to the overhead and then carry out manouevres within the protection of ATZ or CTZ to ensure a safe and controlled approach without having to worry about the rules for flight in 'uncontrolled' airspace.

Outside CAS, there are equal rights (within the limits and requirements of the ANO). If CAT wants preference, they will continue to find it within airspace where the vast majority of GA is excluded ... either by pilot qualification or aircraft equippage. It's called Controlled Airspace

[WorkingHard]

Beagle - Kirmington do not like being called that. They are very important now they are Humberside INTERNATIONAL airport. I did once ask where Humberside DOMESTIC is but recived no response!

[A and C]

A point missed by some !

I am not in vavour of more CAS but my point is the pressure will be on GA to use airspace consideratly or it will become CAS, Beagle may consider the pax on low cost airlines "scum" but he should remember that money talks and there are a lot more "scum" than GA pilots and if GA can't see a changing situation and react to it then it will suffer.

As to the services that can be excepted by a CAT flight I am happy with RIS in good VMC but it has to be RAS in IMC however I doubt if most of the young first officers that I fly with know the difference ! we now have a breed of autopilot in at 400ft and out at 200ft FMC obsessed aircraft opperators who spend most of the time head down pushing buttons on the FMC, I encorage the use of the big reality displays ( windows to most people !) but I have an uphill task when these people have only 300 hours total time and very little flying skill.

God help us all when this new JAA CPL turns up and these people only do about 35 hours in a real aircraft and the rest in the sim

[BEagle]

I'm surprised it isn't John Prescott International these days, WorkingHard!

Or, perhaps more appropriately, Bransholme International given that its chief reason for being is to ferry the low life from that Hull-hole to wherever the alcohol is cheap.

Surely its days as an international airport are numbered with RobinDoncasterFinningleyHood spaceport now open?

Anyway, back to the plot. I don't accept that RAS is 'mandatory' in IMC. Given the SA provided by RIS and the relative freedom to make your own decisions based on that is sometimes eaier than being given avoidance turns on every track within 5nm which hasn't been positively identified - even if that traffic is tracking away from you.

At present, quality airline recruiters consider that around 50% of unemployed fATPL holders are virtually unemployable. They simply are NOT the sort of people they want sharing their flight decks. When the ICAO MPL comes along, you can expect to share your beloved Class A airspace with some very inexperienced pilots with 70 hours flight time in real aeroplanes. Hopefully the JAA version of the MPL - or more probably the EASA version - will require initial selection and considerable airline involvement, but there's no guarantee of that.

[A and C]

yes ! thats why the airlines are getting very good deals to use Kirmington the owners (Manchester airport group) are in a blind panic !.

I would rather be at an airport to the west a little way with a longer runway, performance is not an issue at the ex-V bomber base.

[flower]

There are a few places where new CAS is required and those places do have applications in with DAP.
I am however a great supporter of Class G airspace and people out enjoying themselves able to simply get on with flying without a need to speak to anyone. That however does bring with it a responsibility as BEagle has already said of maintaining a distance from IAPs for example.
The vast majority do, they fly without causing any problems to anyone it is however the very small minority who end up causing these debates. Most of those who cause the difficulties appear to be simply ignorant, they are the ones whom i worry less about, it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone.

[Fuji Abound]

"it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone."

A very sad day when we change the policy to suite a very small minority.

Drunks can cause us all a few problems from time to time - the answer could be to ban alcohol.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Things change.

Look at how Liverpool (17 LCC Boeings) and Bristol (9 LCC Airbuses) for example have grown busier and busier over the last decade. See how the likes of Finningley and Coventry are headed the same way.

Airspace should not and will not remain static in the face of changed realities. If air travel was in decline it would be possible to remove CAS. The opposite is the reality.

The area where there is real scope to open up airspace is the military. The Navy does not use and cannot justify the huge danger areas they maintain in the South of England. The RAF with its dwindling fleet still demands most of the East coast of England to itself. Accomodating the military in the airspace over England puts them in some of the most highly congested airspace in the world. With the whole RAF standing at a little over 40,000 staff they could all be accomodated in Inverness and be out of everyones way and spend a lot less time transiting to ranges and low flying areas.

GA pilots should be in favour of having more controlled airspace where it is justified by the commercial realities of an airport getting busier. They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance.

GA would be faced with mandatory Mode S TCAS and that includes you glider boy and microlight man. But then the insurance companies would have grounded most of the GA fleet the day after the air disaster anyway.

Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots.

Cheers

WWW

[robin]

You may have a point, but have a look at the PFAs response to the Coventry proposals.

They make a reasoned case for reducing the proposed CAS around Coventry as being disproportionate. It is a many times larger area per movement than any of the London Airports for around 5 movements a day.

It appears that the airport want to accommodate the low-cost airlines which, to save fuel, chose not to use the existing CAS but take a short-cut through Class G.

Thee are similar proposals at other expanding regional airfields but all need to be viewed critically, and reduced to a reasonable extent.

What we don't want though is the case of a mid-air collision when a commercial jet decides to take a shortcut, thinking they have automatic right of way.

By the way, are airline pilots taught to look out? 70 hours actual flight time seems incredibly low and I would question the real-world airmanship of a pilot with that level of experience in the air

[WorkingHard]

WWW I think your response is sound and reasonable. You say "Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots."
Absolutely agree but the polarisation comes from different sides. It is not GA that is necessarily doing the polarisation. We have stacked against us, military, CAT, some atcos (note some please), a number of airports that see GA as somehow demeaning if they accomodate us and of course the good old CAA. comparisons with other countries, especially the USA, shows this polarisation in the UK to be unneccessary on safety grounds.

[flower]

I have been asked why the proposed airspace surrounding Cardiff and Bristol is so complex, well DAP insists you request only the minimum that you can safely accommodate your movements within.
When putting the proposal together there was no question of putting in a request for more airspace on the basis they would ask you to reduce the size, we had from the start to put in a realistic proposal.
DAP quite rightly insists that all airspace users are considered hence why we have what on the face of it looks a very complicated piece of Class D airspace coming in, the minimum class D required for a safe operation.

Locally there have been very few problems as they know Class D transits are not a problem but equally there is still a considerable amount of Class G. It is to some seen also as a benefit as they know when it comes in that ATC will not have the same requirement to wish to talk to aircraft flying out in Class G.

Carefully planned airspace should have a minimum impact on most GA users, equally if you are Class D and there is difficulty due workload issues or density of traffic to accommodate VFR perhaps the airspace should be of higher category.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Robin, COV had 3 737's belonging to ThompsonFly who should be looking at an average of 7 movements a day..

All airline pilots are taught to look out because at one point all airline pilots were PPL's - some of us still are. I have seen and avoided in my 737 more light aircraft than have seen and avoided me - one on Saturday springs to mind.

I know you in GA feel persecuted and unloved. Its because you are. But don't lash out at commercial aviation as it's us who pay the bills (along with the MoD). Unless you fly from your own grass strip then I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy (air is free but hangars and runways and ATC are not).

Cheers

WWW

[Fuji Abound]

"I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy"

Oooh do tell, so what resources would those be then

[BEagle]

By that token, WWW, then most of us have probably have a certain Cpl A Hitler to thank, actually...

If he hadn't caused so much trouble in the first place, there would perhaps have been no World War 2, no RAF expansion and no disused aerodromes later.

Daft logic, of course. But no more so than yours.

Locos who choose to operate from smaller, cheaper airports with only Class G airspace and a RAS to keep their IFR aircraft away from legitimate GA traffic happily operating under VFR must include the extra fuel costs as part of their business plans.

Either that or go elsewhere.

[Fuji Abound]

"They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance."

I dont think so.

The ATCO (nee TWATCO) will get the blame.

[robin]

Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman

Robin, COV had 3 737's belonging to ThompsonFly who should be looking at an average of 7 movements a day..

The PFA response looks at the number of flights throughout the year and proportioned the runway that would force the extension of the airspace. This works out cuurently at around 4-5 a day. Compare that with movements at Gatwick which has not asked for such a massive expansion

Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman

All airline pilots are taught to look out because at one point all airline pilots were PPL's - some of us still are. I have seen and avoided in my 737 more light aircraft than have seen and avoided me - one on Saturday springs to mind.

I would doubt that. When flying my glider, when you hear a piston engine or a jet engine, your head starts moving about (and one's sphincter does other things) until you have identified the aircraft in question.

I know of few pilots who are likely to lose sight of a 737. They do however lose sight of microlights, gliders and small aircraft. So shoving us into smaller and smaller corridors (Luton/Stanstead corridor, the CPT honeypot, the Brize/Lyneham area, for instance) only adds to our risks

Many years ago, the great Philip Wills was involved in the design of the Luton Airspace around Dunstable. Reps from the CAA, the airlines, the airport and ATC were chuntering on about extending the airspace to ensure safe passage for airliners. Huge areas of airspace for a small number of commercial aircraft were proposed. He stopped the discussions dead in their tracks when he asked the simple question - 'who is responsible for flight outside the controlled airspace'. Then the powers that be were smart enough to understand that by restricting open FIR they increase disproportionately the risks to VFR flight. 90% of flight is done in the sport and light aircraft sector, but we are being squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of unregulated airspace.

Of course, when the collisions then happen, like the accident at Brookman Park, there is a call for more regulated airspace. In reality what is needed is less, so we have a fighting chance of passing each other in safety

Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman

But don't lash out at commercial aviation as it's us who pay the bills (along with the MoD). Unless you fly from your own grass strip then I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy (air is free but hangars and runways and ATC are not).
Cheers
WWW

Wrong. I actually find that the commercial operators are responsible for many of the unnecessary bills I have to pay. Flying from strips, I don't need the Mode S, at times not even a radio,

[bar shaker]

Originally Posted by niknak

Today aircraft to be delayed was an ambulance flight with a critically ill child on board which had to be repositioned back onto the approach because some clot decided to fly through the final approach at 1500ft, at 6nm, sqawking but couldn't be bothered to call us. It took approximately 20 extra track miles and a five minute delay to the ambulance flight.

This is a joke, right?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as.

BEagle you seem to think that Locos simply transport scumbags on beer tours. Whereas in fact my 572 domestic passengers yesterday carried only 254 bags... the majority were wearing suits and carrying laptops.

Robin, speaking as a gliding instructor I find your defence of being able to hear other aircraft remarkable. I'm doing 287mph at 4,000ft. I hope your lookout is really sharp as I weigh 57 tons and you weigh approximately the same as my rear galley.

I want to avoid an accident between a commercial airliner and a GA aircraft. What do you want?

Cheers

WWW

[dublinpilot]

Why does everyone thinks that they avoid more aircraft, than other aircraft avoid them?

Is it because they are better pilots?

Or is it because they don't ever see all the aircraft that actually turn to avoid them? How can you count the aircraft that you never saw.....never knew was there, but turned to avoid hitting you?

dp

[BEagle]

"LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as."

Nonsense.

LoCos move to cheaper airports, then try to use their muscle to grab airspace. If they'd remained at airports which already have CAS and which are under utillised it would have cost them more.

Simple as.