Another Glasgow airspace grab
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
Email from British Microlight Aircraft Association this morning - but nothing in the post to me at Strathaven Airfield from NATS etc!
It is the old change Class E to Class D proposal, now modified.
Also a proposal to release some of Glasgow's zone over Whitelee Subsidy Generator back to Class G, since the windfarm people have spent millions to make sure this airspace cannot be seen by Glasgow's radar!
A 3,500ft base over Cumbernauld and the high ground to the north (with subsidy generators on top!) would be better.
And removing a couple of miles of Glasgow's zone left over Kilmarnock would make for easier VFR navigation with no excuse for zone infringements.
But no doubt someone will find a link since comments have to be in within a few weeks.
Email from British Microlight Aircraft Association this morning - but nothing in the post to me at Strathaven Airfield from NATS etc!
It is the old change Class E to Class D proposal, now modified.
Also a proposal to release some of Glasgow's zone over Whitelee Subsidy Generator back to Class G, since the windfarm people have spent millions to make sure this airspace cannot be seen by Glasgow's radar!
A 3,500ft base over Cumbernauld and the high ground to the north (with subsidy generators on top!) would be better.
And removing a couple of miles of Glasgow's zone left over Kilmarnock would make for easier VFR navigation with no excuse for zone infringements.
But no doubt someone will find a link since comments have to be in within a few weeks.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the proposal to change the Glasgow Class "E" to class "D" with a base of 2500ft was thrown out by the CAA, I believe now a base of 3000ft has been proposed with some other restrictions lifted to the west of Strathaven.....Once introduced an SSR monitoring code will be introduced for aircraft routing below this airspace that does not require any form of ATC service from other units i.e. "Scottish Info" The monitoring code will be to reduce R/T loading of VFR traffic working Glasgow/Edinburgh as the introduction of EFPS is not really VFR traffic friendly....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Mode S becomes mandatory any non-Mode S aircraft will be refused entry into CAS. With or without any further changes to CAS the Central Belt is difficult to pass VFR at anything other than a narrow corridoor at low-level, or alternatively flying far-out over the East, either of which can be impractical. With mandatory Mode S this will make things worse.
The airspace setup in the Central Belt is awkward, nonsensical and archaic (much like elsewhere in the country - London, Manchester...) and yet it still continues to sprawl uncontrollably like some sort of horiffic cancerous growth. There seems to be little effort made to reconstruct airspace, merely to continue patching it up willy-nilly making it messier and messier. The Half-Mil charts are an eyesore with various bizarre shapes, different classes, different bases, transition altitudes all adjacent to each other... and this organised confusion is meant to be for "safety"?
I hear you're having a spot of bother with EFPS FBW...
Smithy
The airspace setup in the Central Belt is awkward, nonsensical and archaic (much like elsewhere in the country - London, Manchester...) and yet it still continues to sprawl uncontrollably like some sort of horiffic cancerous growth. There seems to be little effort made to reconstruct airspace, merely to continue patching it up willy-nilly making it messier and messier. The Half-Mil charts are an eyesore with various bizarre shapes, different classes, different bases, transition altitudes all adjacent to each other... and this organised confusion is meant to be for "safety"?
I hear you're having a spot of bother with EFPS FBW...
Smithy
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jockistan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smithy - not quite true. The folks at Edinburgh are generally more than happy to facilitate a zone transit. You can also duck under the Edinburgh CTA stubs at sub 2500'.
I do however agree that a wholesale review/simplification of airspace is really what's required. For a start it would probably cut down the number of infringments.
I do however agree that a wholesale review/simplification of airspace is really what's required. For a start it would probably cut down the number of infringments.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be little effort made to reconstruct airspace, merely to continue patching it up willy-nilly making it messier and messier.
Consequently you get intensive traffic utilization on both sides of the fence, over-complex charts, high infringements, Class-A everywhere, messed up/undeveloped low-level IFR ATS routes, and elevated risk of collisions.
There needs to be a use of (relatively) standard shapes, complete elimination of Class A, frequent zone transits, and everyone flies safer within slightly larger areas of a known traffic environment.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 36
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree the PH controllers are excellent and very helpful but the airspace layout is still somewhat awkward and confusing. Low-level transits are generally easy though, I agree.
I tend to agree with what sh650 says. Take the US for example... Class D is found around towered airfields. Circular in shape - all that's needed is two-way RT and a transit is never an issue. Busier airports have Class B, which again is circular in shape, often with stubs for departures/arrivals. Transiting Class B is also largely a non-issue even at major international airports. Things are kept simple yet safe.
We on the other hand insist on all manner of bizarre shapes and sizes of airspace, often with overlapping different classes and varying bases/ceilings. Transition level is all over the place. UK Class D is used like US Class B - US has much more congested airspace than the UK but we can't seem to handle it. I struggle to make any sense of the Southern England Half-Mil. It is bonkers. And yet the CAA wonders why there are so many infringments...
And why will non-Mode S be banned from Class D?
UK airspace policy is confusing, complicated, garbled, outdated and does not make any sense. What would be better for VFR and IFR traffic alike is a major restructuring and a look Westward over the pond to see how things can be better done with busy airspace and mixing VFR/IFR movements.
There again this is Britain, where everything is old and fecked and we're just expected to live with it even as our country and its setup crumbles around us.
Smithy
I tend to agree with what sh650 says. Take the US for example... Class D is found around towered airfields. Circular in shape - all that's needed is two-way RT and a transit is never an issue. Busier airports have Class B, which again is circular in shape, often with stubs for departures/arrivals. Transiting Class B is also largely a non-issue even at major international airports. Things are kept simple yet safe.
We on the other hand insist on all manner of bizarre shapes and sizes of airspace, often with overlapping different classes and varying bases/ceilings. Transition level is all over the place. UK Class D is used like US Class B - US has much more congested airspace than the UK but we can't seem to handle it. I struggle to make any sense of the Southern England Half-Mil. It is bonkers. And yet the CAA wonders why there are so many infringments...
And why will non-Mode S be banned from Class D?
UK airspace policy is confusing, complicated, garbled, outdated and does not make any sense. What would be better for VFR and IFR traffic alike is a major restructuring and a look Westward over the pond to see how things can be better done with busy airspace and mixing VFR/IFR movements.
There again this is Britain, where everything is old and fecked and we're just expected to live with it even as our country and its setup crumbles around us.
Smithy
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Central Scotland airspace changes
I think this is the current proposal that the op refers to.
http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/upl...ndumIssue1.pdf
I think it looks like "a good thing" but perhaps making the base layer 3,500 would have encouraged those who refuse to talk to ATC to fly that little bit higher through the gap, at 3,000 rather than the current 2,000 feet.
The overall proposal seeks to change the classification of the controlled airspace between Glasgow and Edinburgh (the current Class E Glasgow CTA) from Class E to Class D, which will enhance safety by establishing the airspace as a "known traffic environment" where all aircraft are required to be in contact with Air Traffic Control (ATC).
In October 2010 the Director of Airspace Policy (DAP) rejected NATS’ ACP application for the changes proposed, but invited NATS Glasgow to undertake work to prove that a base of 3000ft may be feasible from an operational perspective.
NATS Glasgow has undertaken trials to evaluate the proposed base of 3000ft and its effect on the operation. These trials were successful and concluded that Class D airspace with a 3000ft base could be operated safely and would represent an improvement over the existing Class E airspace (base 2500ft). Prior to submitting a revised Airspace Change Proposal to the DAP, a limited re-consultation is required to enable stakeholders to respond to this amended proposal.
The period of consultation commences on Monday 28th March 2011 and closes on Tuesday 26th April 2011 (4 weeks). If the proposal is approved by the CAA, implementation of the airspace change will occur at an appropriate opportunity but, in any event, not before July 28th 2011.
Please send any comments on the airspace change proposal to:
Consultation Co-ordinator
NATS, Control Tower Building
Glasgow Airport,
Campsie Drive,
Paisley,
Renfrewshire, PA3 2SG
http://www.nats.co.uk/wp-content/upl...ndumIssue1.pdf
I think it looks like "a good thing" but perhaps making the base layer 3,500 would have encouraged those who refuse to talk to ATC to fly that little bit higher through the gap, at 3,000 rather than the current 2,000 feet.
The overall proposal seeks to change the classification of the controlled airspace between Glasgow and Edinburgh (the current Class E Glasgow CTA) from Class E to Class D, which will enhance safety by establishing the airspace as a "known traffic environment" where all aircraft are required to be in contact with Air Traffic Control (ATC).
In October 2010 the Director of Airspace Policy (DAP) rejected NATS’ ACP application for the changes proposed, but invited NATS Glasgow to undertake work to prove that a base of 3000ft may be feasible from an operational perspective.
NATS Glasgow has undertaken trials to evaluate the proposed base of 3000ft and its effect on the operation. These trials were successful and concluded that Class D airspace with a 3000ft base could be operated safely and would represent an improvement over the existing Class E airspace (base 2500ft). Prior to submitting a revised Airspace Change Proposal to the DAP, a limited re-consultation is required to enable stakeholders to respond to this amended proposal.
The period of consultation commences on Monday 28th March 2011 and closes on Tuesday 26th April 2011 (4 weeks). If the proposal is approved by the CAA, implementation of the airspace change will occur at an appropriate opportunity but, in any event, not before July 28th 2011.
Please send any comments on the airspace change proposal to:
Consultation Co-ordinator
NATS, Control Tower Building
Glasgow Airport,
Campsie Drive,
Paisley,
Renfrewshire, PA3 2SG
Last edited by airpolice; 31st Mar 2011 at 13:20.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Smiffy:
There's no such proposal in the revised Glasgow ACP and I'd be amazed if they proposed such a thing. You may have picked this up from fisbangwollop's comment:
which I take to mean a code you set when you're below the Glasgow and Edinburgh CTAs but don't want to talk to anyone. But if they wanted to make that mandatory they'd have to impose a Transponder Mandatory Zone which would require an ACP in itself, and would get every short shrift from all GA in central Scotland and beyond.
I'm not sure the Yanks do airspace simplicity any better than us. Take Edinburgh. 10nm radius circle CTR - simple. Yes, Glasgow's more complex, but they are releasing chunks of CAS in this proposal. I'll tell you my LA story. Hired a Cessna 206 there once, with instructor, to go to San Diego. He said "have you planned a route?" I said yes and showed him my multiple doglegs designed to fly round the incredibly complex and bamboozling structure of CAS. He said "naaah, let's just go direct", and drew a straight line which passed right through the climb-out from LAX. The difference, of course, is in the way ATC there treats the issue of separating VFR and IFR traffic.
Then again, you can also see those differences between Edinburgh and Glasgow - maybe that's what you meant about looking west
NS
And why will non-Mode S be banned from Class D?
Once introduced an SSR monitoring code will be introduced for aircraft routing below this airspace that does not require any form of ATC service from other units i.e. "Scottish Info"
UK airspace policy is confusing, complicated, garbled, outdated and does not make any sense. What would be better for VFR and IFR traffic alike is a major restructuring and a look Westward over the pond to see how things can be better done with busy airspace and mixing VFR/IFR movements
Then again, you can also see those differences between Edinburgh and Glasgow - maybe that's what you meant about looking west
NS
