15 March all airspace above FL195 Class C (but still treated as A?)

[mm_flynn]

In the SVFR thread I saw the following,

Originally Posted by chevvron

TDM re your question in 29: All UK airspace from FL195 to FL245 becomes class C wef 15 Mar; that includes airspace presently classed A, D, F & G. it would seem logical to change the Heathrow & City Zones at the same time; nah maybe it's too logical.
NB There'll be TRA's in it for the military to use, TRA now being 'Temporary Reserved Area' not 'Temporary Restricted Airspace'.

which prompted me to read the AIC in detail. I am sure the for the guys in the business there are significant changes - but for me as a reader, I concluded the CAA/NATS have agreed to go with Europe but then has restricted the Class C airspace to basically be back to A along all of the pre existing airways and then carved out most of the rest of the space to be Class C with the servicing be defined as the current UK ATCOCAS.

AIC 1/2007
.... access will be accommodated within the context of safety, capacity and the effect on the ATS network as a whole. Consequently, VFR access to the ATS route structure is only likely to be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Application for such flights should be made...

So we still have A airways down low, where many States seem to be able to integrate VFR and IFR operations and an airspace up high, that in the definition should accommodate VFR and IFR. But to operate VFR, you will need to book in advance and are unlikely to have it approved (it is effectively limited to IFR AKA Class A ).

[rustle]

Above FL245 was all "B" previously, not "A".

The biggest change is the lowering of the base from FL245 to FL195 which means that where it went from G --> B at FL245 it now goes from G --> C at FL195. The BGA know a song about that.

If I had to guess, the next logical step once all the SES area have commonality above FL195 would be to make it "N".

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by mm_flynn

I am sure the for the guys in the business there are significant changes - but for me as a reader, I concluded the CAA/NATS have agreed to go with Europe but then has restricted the Class C airspace to basically be back to A along all of the pre existing airways and then carved out most of the rest of the space to be Class C with the servicing be defined as the current UK ATCOCAS.

The principle is that enroute VFR is not permitted about FL195, and that other VFR is permitted only in airspace reservations. But it's impractical to separate VFR from other VFR within those reservations (e.g. gliders from each other), so calling it "class B" is not appropriate.

[nouseforaname]

The other thing that comes in on that date is the requirement of .25khz spacing on your radio if you want to fly about FL190 in the airways. We are going to have to get ours changed over.
Another fantastic advantage of having the base of high level airways lowered to F195 is that you will be able to get a more direct routing. The base of high level airways in mainland Europe has consistently been F195 for a long time now.
i.e. flying from the UK to France at FL200 or above will give you a MUCH more direct routing especially in France.

[chevvron]

I think airspace above FL245 remains class B, it's only the bit from 195 to 245 that changes.

[London Mil]

ooooh, I think a little more reading is required. In simple terms:
All airspace above FL245 within the UK FIR is already Class C.
Come 15 March, FL245 drops to FL195 - ie everything above FL195 will be Class C. En-route VFR flight above FL195 has always been a moot point (ICAO SARPs prohibit it).
Because the military (and to a lesser extent the gliding community) got grumpy about the reduction of 'open FIR', the UK has designated huge swathes of sky as Temporary Reserved Airspace (TRAs) (as an aside, this is why the old TRA established for incidents have now bee re-categorised as RA(T)). These lumps of sky (TRAs) are, more or less, the bits of Class G that currently exist above FL195. TRAs will be active 'office hours' (details published in AIP) and within these hours, pilots can operate within them with the same tactical freedom that they currently enjoy (I think there will be a specific SSR code (7006?) for autonomous ops). ATSOCAS within these TRAs will be available, subject to the usual caveats, from the military area radar units. Gliders will operate under separate arrangements that are similar to those currently used for operating above FL245.
Outside of 'office hours', these TRAs will revert to Class C status. Consequently, anyone who jumps into his Jet Provost at the weekend for a quickie up to FL240 will have to think a little more carefully.
Confused?

[IO540]

The other thing that comes in on that date is the requirement of .25khz

I think you mean 8.33kHz.

That will sell a lot of Garmin 430s For many owners, this is the cheapest way to get 8.33, FM immunity, and an IFR GPS, and a radio + VOR + ILS in one box.

Still, I expect most people who fly pressurised (more or less essential for serious enroute above FL195) will have the kit already...

[mm_flynn]

The thing that struck me as odd (or amusing) was that I can't see the operational difference between Class C in which VFR is not allowed (as per the warning in the quote and ICAO SARPS) and class A. As such why not make it all class A with some TRA's to allow for the mil and high flying gliders? If the cut off was at FL180 and this was used as the transition altitude as well, it might a good idea that catches on somewhere in the world ;-)

[rustle]

Originally Posted by mm_flynn

If the cut off was at FL180 and this was used as the transition altitude as well, it might a good idea that catches on somewhere in the world ;-)

AAMOI, do you know why 180 was chosen as the TA in the US? (more to do with the lower 48 than Alaska)

Do you know why 195 was chosen in EASA land?

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by rustle

AAMOI, do you know why 180 was chosen as the TA in the US? (more to do with the lower 48 than Alaska)
Do you know why 195 was chosen in EASA land?

I seem to remember that FL180 is above the minimum IFR altitude for the whole of the lower 48. I assume Mont Blanc being about 1500 feet higher than Mount Elbert has somthing to do with it being FL195 vs FL180

[M609]

The thing that struck me as odd (or amusing) was that I can't see the operational difference between Class C in which VFR is not allowed (as per the warning in the quote and ICAO SARPS) and class A. As such why not make it all class A with some TRA's to allow for the mil and high flying gliders? If the cut off was at FL180 and this was used as the transition altitude as well, it might a good idea that catches on somewhere in the world ;-)

Because a major part of SES is reduction to 2 airspace classes. (I.E controlled and uncontrolled, C and G, stillt to be determined)
But because the UK have a airspace structure most of europe abandonned decades ago, it's a brutal change.....

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by mm_flynn

As such why not make it all class A with some TRA's to allow for the mil and high flying gliders?

Because the TRAs can remain class C, since separation between VFR flights in those TRAs is not provided.

[DFC]

Why 195?

One reason is that the airspace design requirements below FL195 are difference from those above that level.

It also ties in nicely with the internationally accepted ICAO standard that VFR flights are not allowed above FL195

Regards,

DFC