Clyde Tmz
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: uk
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
From: USA
Yeah. Wht not put a large circle around the terminal airspace instead of a small patch here, a small patch there and a small patch here?
Like this
It makes the charts much simpler to read, encourages everyone to leave their transponder on mode-C, and saves people getting busted for errors with navigating around tight spaces in-between multiple TMZs.
Non-transponder equipped aircraft should be able to use these spaces subject to ATC approval.
Like this
It makes the charts much simpler to read, encourages everyone to leave their transponder on mode-C, and saves people getting busted for errors with navigating around tight spaces in-between multiple TMZs.
Non-transponder equipped aircraft should be able to use these spaces subject to ATC approval.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 21st November 2010 at 10:33.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Interesting AOPA are not on the list of consultees. Why would you consult British Airways? In the USA the first group on the list would be AOPA.
Personally I don't mind, I think TMZs are a good idea and I think there should be one around every main airport that doesn't have CAS.
Personally I don't mind, I think TMZs are a good idea and I think there should be one around every main airport that doesn't have CAS.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Personally I don't mind, I think TMZs are a good idea and I think there should be one around every main airport that doesn't have CAS
NS
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
From: Niort
So the Luton TMZ was the thin end of the wedge!
Now we have one of the largest most empty pieces of CAS (see the LAA response to the last change) demanding a TMZ is an area where presently there is no transponder requirement - or much prospect of an ATC service.
There does seem to be an unpublished policy to insist on a TMZ under virtually any circumstance where radar 'might' be impaired.
Now we have one of the largest most empty pieces of CAS (see the LAA response to the last change) demanding a TMZ is an area where presently there is no transponder requirement - or much prospect of an ATC service.
There does seem to be an unpublished policy to insist on a TMZ under virtually any circumstance where radar 'might' be impaired.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Well, I'm not sure the Luton (actually Stansted) TMZ is relevant because it's permanent. This isn't.
I agree with the first bit but, with the greatest respect to fisbangwollop and his colleagues, there is actually NO prospect of an ATC service because if you try to call one of the Scottish Control frequencies below the TMA, and aren't intending to climb into the TMA, you will be told to call Sc Info who of course are not radar-equipped. Sc Info will then tell you to squawk.
What I don't get is why the current situation, before this wind farm is built, where a non-transponding light aircraft can climb into the TMA in this area and controllers will continue to assume it's remaining below CAS, is deemed acceptable, but a future situation, when the wind farm is built, and non-transponding aircraft still climb into the TMA, is considered unacceptable.
NS
an area where presently there is no transponder requirement - or much prospect of an ATC service
What I don't get is why the current situation, before this wind farm is built, where a non-transponding light aircraft can climb into the TMA in this area and controllers will continue to assume it's remaining below CAS, is deemed acceptable, but a future situation, when the wind farm is built, and non-transponding aircraft still climb into the TMA, is considered unacceptable.
NS
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
What I don't get is why the current situation, before this wind farm is built, where a non-transponding light aircraft can climb into the TMA in this area and controllers will continue to assume it's remaining below CAS, is deemed acceptable, but a future situation, when the wind farm is built, and non-transponding aircraft still climb into the TMA, is considered unacceptable.
I don't mind, my own personal view is that every aeroplane should have a transponder.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
A Nuclear power station would show up as a smaller paint on a PPI or could be easily built elsewhere where it won't interfere, also would provide much more power over a wider area. Much better idea, nay? 
Smithy
Smithy
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
A PPI is something that controllers stare at all day, and yet another thing we spods must fix from time to time.
A "paint" is a target. Movies, dafties etc. tend to use the horrendously naff term "blip" in substitution (up there with cheesy innaccurate crap like "over and out", "roger wilco" etc.)
Smithy
A "paint" is a target. Movies, dafties etc. tend to use the horrendously naff term "blip" in substitution (up there with cheesy innaccurate crap like "over and out", "roger wilco" etc.)
Smithy
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
From: .
Most likely terrain. Any Primary returns will either be blanked by the Processor (to counter interference from terrain, windfarms etc.) or will be undetected altogether due to the terrain. Perhaps NS or an ATCE/ATCO from the area in question could confirm?
Smithy
Smithy
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Can anyone explain to me why an aeroplane at 3,499' is not a problem to the radar cover but 3,501' would be? i.e. why a cut off at 3,500'
NS
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: uk
Thanks NorthSouth. Good to know, now if the base of Controlled Airspace was raised to FL75 that would give a 2,000' buffer below and effectively retain the old base....
If the base went up 2,000' would there no longer be a need for the TTMZ?
bb
If the base went up 2,000' would there no longer be a need for the TTMZ?
bb