Glasgow Class E
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Glasgow Class E
Anyone know what's happened to last year's proposal to change Glasgow's eastern CTA from Class E to Class D? Seems to have gone very quiet since the amended proposal was issued about 18 months ago
NS
NS
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
From: Strathaven Airfield
Perhaps the main driver of it has moved to another job?
Or that the main reason was the rapid growth (!) in traffic at Glasgow?
Or that wind farm stuff is taking up all the time of many people in aviation in Scotland as a higher priority?
Or that the main reason was the rapid growth (!) in traffic at Glasgow?
Or that wind farm stuff is taking up all the time of many people in aviation in Scotland as a higher priority?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Irrespective of growth/no growth at Glasgow it does seem a bit peculiar that the main approach routes into this airport routinely have IFR traffic descending in IMC when you could quite easily have VFR traffic which might not be showing on radar cruising along entirely legitimately at one foot below the cloudbase, not speaking to anyone. Seems spectacularly senseless to me but hey what do I know I'm only a pilot.
NS
NS
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: USA
Seems spectacularly senseless to me but hey what do I know I'm only a pilot.
The greatest advantage is to be able to freely go anywhere without clearance when VMC. When the weather turns bad, use your IR - talk to ATC, get out your IFR sectional, file an airborne flight plan and get separated from everyone else. The guys who don't have an IR will be on the ground by now.
We have separate IFR and VFR cruising levels to address the problem you describe.
The guys flying IFR are always talking to ATC, so they will be asked to turn if there is a conflict with VFR stuff. The guys flying VFR are encouraged to get 'Flight Following' so you become known.
To prevent turning too much under IFR due to unknown traffic, there is also Class A over 18,000ft...
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
Seems spectacularly senseless to me but hey what do I know I'm only a pilot.
What happened to the TMZ near Whitelee? I recall it was being trialled a while back but I thought it may have been a more perminant policy. Last time I was through to Prestwick Gleska' Radar didn't seem particularly interested in me. Fair enough though it was a quiet day with not much about.
Smithy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
sh650:
Indeed. Which is why I'm surprised that the proposal to turn the Glasgow CTA - just such a "busy terminal area" from Class E to Class D seems to have disappeared into the ether.
It's also worth reminding ourselves what the UK air traffic rules say controllers must do when they see unidentified radar contacts in the vicinity of the IFR traffic they're controlling in Class E airspace:
So if it's really busy and you're controlling a string of arrivals you don't even bother telling the pilot about the unidentified return in your 12 o'clock
So even if it looks like there's a conflict, you wait for the pilot to request avoiding action
How would you tell that from a primary-only contact which doesn't have to be speaking to anyone?
On top of that I'd wager that if you asked professional pilots inbound to Glasgow what class of airspace they flew through and what the rules were for it, half of them would be amazed to hear it could have unknown non-radio non-transponding VFR traffic in it, flying just below the cloudbase in vis as low as 1500 metres.
NS
Class E is used almost 'E'verywhere in the US outside the busy terminal areas
It's also worth reminding ourselves what the UK air traffic rules say controllers must do when they see unidentified radar contacts in the vicinity of the IFR traffic they're controlling in Class E airspace:
Pass traffic information unless the controller’s primary function of sequencing and separating IFR flights is likely to be compromised.
If a pilot requests avoiding action it shall be provided to the extent determined by the controller.
Give avoiding action if radar derived or other information indicates that an aircraft is lost or has experienced a radio failure.
On top of that I'd wager that if you asked professional pilots inbound to Glasgow what class of airspace they flew through and what the rules were for it, half of them would be amazed to hear it could have unknown non-radio non-transponding VFR traffic in it, flying just below the cloudbase in vis as low as 1500 metres.
NS
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: USA
So if it's really busy and you're controlling a string of arrivals you don't even bother telling the pilot about the unidentified return in your 12 o'clock
It is hoped the guy flying VFR would have seen and avoided the other traffic by this point which reduces that risk.
Even VFR Flight Following can be terminated when the controller is too busy handling IFR traffic.
So even if it looks like there's a conflict, you wait for the pilot to request avoiding action
How would you tell that from a primary-only contact which doesn't have to be speaking to anyone?
On top of that I'd wager that if you asked professional pilots inbound to Glasgow what class of airspace they flew through and what the rules were for it, half of them would be amazed to hear it could have unknown non-radio non-transponding VFR traffic in it, flying just below the cloudbase in vis as low as 1500 metres.
Class E in the US dictates VFR must always be satisfied if you're not IFR (or SVFR) - therefore there is a rule to maintain 500 feet below, and 1000 feet above cloud. If you can't maintain VFR, just talk to ATC.
So if Glasgow is reclassifying E to D, it sounds like the zone is getting busier.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 21st September 2010 at 09:17.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
From: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Hi NS
Surely there is no need for IFR traffic to use or fly over the class E corridor unless they choose to cut the corner. After all Glasgows runway is 05/23. The existing class D goes out to at least 10 miles in all directions.
DO.
Surely there is no need for IFR traffic to use or fly over the class E corridor unless they choose to cut the corner. After all Glasgows runway is 05/23. The existing class D goes out to at least 10 miles in all directions.
DO.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
The standard arrival route for 80% of Glasgow's inbound traffic when using r/w 23 goes from the Lanark area towards the final approach. Most of this is in Class E airspace.
NS
NS
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
From: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Hi NS
I've just had a look at the STARS and it would seem that the route after LANAK is at the controllers discretion. The route that is currently used results in one less heading change and will be slightly more direct than keeping the traffic in class D.
From a totally selfish point of view (sorry xrayalpha) I would have no problem with the corridor being class D or TMZ except that it is sometimes difficult to get a word in. Now if Scottish Info could give a clearance....
DO.
I've just had a look at the STARS and it would seem that the route after LANAK is at the controllers discretion. The route that is currently used results in one less heading change and will be slightly more direct than keeping the traffic in class D.
From a totally selfish point of view (sorry xrayalpha) I would have no problem with the corridor being class D or TMZ except that it is sometimes difficult to get a word in. Now if Scottish Info could give a clearance....
DO.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
DO:
Correct, and most aircraft are vectored towards final before they get to LANAK. Even if they weren't, they'd be descending into the Class E after LANAK.
NS
it would seem that the route after LANAK is at the controllers discretion
NS
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
From: Strathaven Airfield
Dont Overfill,
No need to apologise.
I am not against the reclassification of some of the Class E - wouldn't dream of flying above 3,000ft in there without speaking to Glasgow.
But at 2,000-2,500ft I often can't speak to Glasgow!
The main concern, I believe, is that the neat solution - just change the letter on the chart - was not the best solution.
After some chat, we did reach some compromises - especially the area over Whitelees, where millions have been spent so ATC can't see anything in that airspace below a certain height (to remove the windfarm clutter).
But there were other sticking points.
No need to apologise.
I am not against the reclassification of some of the Class E - wouldn't dream of flying above 3,000ft in there without speaking to Glasgow.
But at 2,000-2,500ft I often can't speak to Glasgow!
The main concern, I believe, is that the neat solution - just change the letter on the chart - was not the best solution.
After some chat, we did reach some compromises - especially the area over Whitelees, where millions have been spent so ATC can't see anything in that airspace below a certain height (to remove the windfarm clutter).
But there were other sticking points.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: uk
CDA
The rumour is that Glasgow is going to introduce Continuous Descent Aproaches and this will result in CAT spending less time in the class "E".
looking at Watch Air Traffic - LIVE! and BAA Glasgow: Flight arrivals at Glasgow Airport | Live Glasgow Airport arrivals
it appears that Glasgow is quiet and droping at 10% PA as opposed to the prediction of massive growth at the time of the ACP
bb
looking at Watch Air Traffic - LIVE! and BAA Glasgow: Flight arrivals at Glasgow Airport | Live Glasgow Airport arrivals
it appears that Glasgow is quiet and droping at 10% PA as opposed to the prediction of massive growth at the time of the ACP
bb
Last edited by bad bear; 24th September 2010 at 16:13.
