Glasgow Transponder Mandatory Zone
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
fbw:
It's not that far past Fenwick so any traffic only just meeting the climb gradient could be only just reaching 6000 in that area. Plus I guess they want a buffer below that to ensure clearance from any conflicts. I don't believe Scottish hands over LANAK arrivals to Glasgow as late as the TMZ area (isn't LANAK the handover point?).
NS
From what I can see this would never affect the SID's as well above 6000ft by the time they get any where near the TMZ, I guess only IFR arrivals for R/W 05 would be affected as they are vectored from the lanak holding fix??
NS
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea the traffic is normally chucked to glasgow heading towards Lanak in the drop to min stack level of F080...Glasgow then vector the traffic round on to ils for 23 or 05, very rarely does traffic go to the hold due perfect sequencing by Scottish...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: scotland
Age: 77
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fisbangwallop,
aye right -
on the handover my roof is used as a marker on most days or that's how it seems. Can't they be routed over Douglas or Larkhall. Don't know how many times I have strained my neck looking up to see who is coming in.!!
Most I have seen in the hold at anyone time has been seven.- all taking about 8 minutes to come round again & again & - well you get the picture.
This year has not been as busy as previous years so have enjoyed the G&T's in the garden more.
Keep up the good work
aye right -
on the handover my roof is used as a marker on most days or that's how it seems. Can't they be routed over Douglas or Larkhall. Don't know how many times I have strained my neck looking up to see who is coming in.!!
Most I have seen in the hold at anyone time has been seven.- all taking about 8 minutes to come round again & again & - well you get the picture.
This year has not been as busy as previous years so have enjoyed the G&T's in the garden more.
Keep up the good work
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"towards Lanak in the drop to min stack level of F080" - a minor point but Min Stack depends on the Glasgow QNH so is usually FL70,80 or less often 90.
"Can't they be routed over .... Larkhall?" - WHAT ! - & disturb the flute band practice ?
"Can't they be routed over .... Larkhall?" - WHAT ! - & disturb the flute band practice ?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea obvious PF QNH dependant but on average on the year FL080 will be min stack.....unless on pretty ****ty days with very low pressure we may have the odd 90...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Stack Level
The lowest flight level available for use in the TMA is always based on the GLASGOW QNH according to the following table
It is perfectly acceptable to place inbounds on a radar heading which takes the aircraft towards base leg for the runway in use provided that no traffic is already holding for that airport and no more than two aircraft are so positioned simultaneously.
Glasgow QNH Min Stack
1014 or more FL70
978 to 1013 FL80
977 or less FL90
The lowest flight level available for use in the TMA is always based on the GLASGOW QNH according to the following table
It is perfectly acceptable to place inbounds on a radar heading which takes the aircraft towards base leg for the runway in use provided that no traffic is already holding for that airport and no more than two aircraft are so positioned simultaneously.
Glasgow QNH Min Stack
1014 or more FL70
978 to 1013 FL80
977 or less FL90
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, consultation was a telephone call less than a fortnight ago, talking about "an area over the windfarms".
Co-ordinates were only received by email on August 17th.
This is now just nine days later - so hardly surprising that I was only able to speak as owner and operator of the airfield and not, as the CAA claim, on behalf of the club and flyers based there.
You try letting club members know, explaining what is going on and then getting feedback in just a few hours!
*****
I repeat, this will only affect traffic in a 10 sq mile area. All the rest of the proposed TMZ is in Glasgow's Class D, where all traffic will be in radio contact so exempt from the transponder requirements.
In fact, most will be in radio contact before the enter the TMZ, since it is not accepted practise to enter the zone without making radio contact!
I can see why the CAA couldn't be bothered going through the full TMZ rigmarole for just 10 sq miles. So why bother introducing it?
Remember, it is ten square miles, not 10 miles by 10 miles (100 sq miles!)
So this is a TINY bit of airspace.
Hence many people's supicions that there is an ulterior motive.
It really is hard to see the flight safety case, honestly. Especially as it is accepted safe practise to class unknown returns as being in the Class G below the existing Class D. Or will that change and transponders become mandatory everywhere?
Co-ordinates were only received by email on August 17th.
This is now just nine days later - so hardly surprising that I was only able to speak as owner and operator of the airfield and not, as the CAA claim, on behalf of the club and flyers based there.
You try letting club members know, explaining what is going on and then getting feedback in just a few hours!
*****
I repeat, this will only affect traffic in a 10 sq mile area. All the rest of the proposed TMZ is in Glasgow's Class D, where all traffic will be in radio contact so exempt from the transponder requirements.
In fact, most will be in radio contact before the enter the TMZ, since it is not accepted practise to enter the zone without making radio contact!
I can see why the CAA couldn't be bothered going through the full TMZ rigmarole for just 10 sq miles. So why bother introducing it?
Remember, it is ten square miles, not 10 miles by 10 miles (100 sq miles!)
So this is a TINY bit of airspace.
Hence many people's supicions that there is an ulterior motive.
It really is hard to see the flight safety case, honestly. Especially as it is accepted safe practise to class unknown returns as being in the Class G below the existing Class D. Or will that change and transponders become mandatory everywhere?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
XA: if the CAA's quote of you is no more than someone's precis of a memory of a phone conversation then that surely doesn't meet the terms of CAP 724/725. But if it's something you gave them in writing then it's rather more problematic. It seems you told them - perhaps on the basis of scant information - that you had no problem with the TMZ proposal, and you didn't anticipate that your members would take a different view. But if the consultation was primarily by phone that suggests that the CAA/NATS decided that since it was such a small area for such a short period it wasn't worth consulting more extensively. That is rather worrying because this and the Stansted TMZ consultations appear to be challenging the long-standing practice that unknown primary returns under CTAs and airways are deemed to be vertically separated from traffic inside CAS, but doing so without expressly challenging the policy.
NS
NS
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the long-standing practice that unknown primary returns under CTAs and airways are deemed to be vertically separated from traffic inside CAS,
To get rid of the clutter, the primary radar will be blanked over the windfarm.
So, there is nothing to deem OCAS.
However, there needs to be some assurance against possible airspace infringers
Hence a TMZ.
The TMZ is temporary because when the new centre comes on line, the radar at the Kincardine Bridge will fill in the gap that is currently blanked.
If you read the letter that was posted by FBW properly you will see that this was not a consultation. It's not an airspace change so it's not covered by CAP724/725.
The CAA put this measure in under their exisiting powers to preserve airspace safety. They've always ben able to do this - even before the TMZ policy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK,
There is a major air safety issue here.
So - taking into account that only people who have radios and are in communication with Glasgow are allowed in the CTR, and are thus emempt from the TMZ - the actual area is less than 10 square miles.
A 2nm radius zone around, say, and airport like Cumbernauld, covers pi r squared of ground - ie 2 x 3.14 x 3.14, which equals 19.72 square miles.
So why the "iron fist" of a TMZ over an area half the size of an ATZ round a local airport.
Indeed, if Strathaven had an ATZ, a couple of those 10 sq miles would be inside it!
Why not just route traffic around that tiny bit of airspace, rather than all this hassle.
ps. Good idea from a controller who just heard about this yesterday! Why not have a clear plastic sticker to put on half mill and quarter mill charts outlining this. Then hand them out at Scottish airfields and flying schools.
No point in having a TMZ and then people busting it - mind you, how would anyone know since they can't see the primary returns!! Or if they can see them, ATC think they are windfarms. Where's the flight safety? (oh, yes, I forgot, we are talking about Class G, see and avoid, oops! I was thinking that this was a really important piece of airspace!!)
There is a major air safety issue here.
So - taking into account that only people who have radios and are in communication with Glasgow are allowed in the CTR, and are thus emempt from the TMZ - the actual area is less than 10 square miles.
A 2nm radius zone around, say, and airport like Cumbernauld, covers pi r squared of ground - ie 2 x 3.14 x 3.14, which equals 19.72 square miles.
So why the "iron fist" of a TMZ over an area half the size of an ATZ round a local airport.
Indeed, if Strathaven had an ATZ, a couple of those 10 sq miles would be inside it!
Why not just route traffic around that tiny bit of airspace, rather than all this hassle.
ps. Good idea from a controller who just heard about this yesterday! Why not have a clear plastic sticker to put on half mill and quarter mill charts outlining this. Then hand them out at Scottish airfields and flying schools.
No point in having a TMZ and then people busting it - mind you, how would anyone know since they can't see the primary returns!! Or if they can see them, ATC think they are windfarms. Where's the flight safety? (oh, yes, I forgot, we are talking about Class G, see and avoid, oops! I was thinking that this was a really important piece of airspace!!)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
VectorLine:
Let me restate. Assurance against possible bottom-up infringers of controlled airspace is currently not provided by establishment of a TMZ anywhere in the UK. It is provided by Rule 35 of the Rules of the Air Regulations which state that you cannot enter controlled airspace without a clearance. Consequently ATC practice has always been that any primary-only radar return which does not correspond with an aircraft which has been given an ATC clearance to enter that controlled airspace is deemed to be below the base of that airspace. If the reason for the temporary TMZ we are talking about here is that the primary radar is being blanked, therefore controllers would have no information on any non-squawking traffic in that area, there are two questions:
1) given that all primary-only returns in that area are currently ignored by Scottish controllers (i.e. deemed to be below CAS) when the radar isn't blanked, what's the advantage of blanking?
2) there are now quite a lot of wind turbines around, including some in large numbers not too far from this area. Why don't those have TMZs over them?
NS
Windfarms cause clutter on primary radar.
To get rid of the clutter, the primary radar will be blanked over the windfarm. So, there is nothing to deem OCAS. However, there needs to be some assurance against possible airspace infringers Hence a TMZ
To get rid of the clutter, the primary radar will be blanked over the windfarm. So, there is nothing to deem OCAS. However, there needs to be some assurance against possible airspace infringers Hence a TMZ
1) given that all primary-only returns in that area are currently ignored by Scottish controllers (i.e. deemed to be below CAS) when the radar isn't blanked, what's the advantage of blanking?
2) there are now quite a lot of wind turbines around, including some in large numbers not too far from this area. Why don't those have TMZs over them?
NS
