Shoreham Incident.

[peterh337]

However I go back to my original point which is that inappropriate airspace classification, in this case the fact the airspace is "uncontrolled", should not be used as a liability waiver.

Soaring - I don't disagree with your drift but you live in a theoretical world.

The UK airspace structure will never change to the US one. In the USA you have taxpayer funded approach controllers who service the extensive Class E airspace. This will never happen here because ATC is privatised and anyway has for a long time operated a policy of cost recovery, and nobody is going to pay the very substantial ATC salaries which would be required for Class E on that scale.

Nobody is also going to pay for radar equipment and the extra cost of a "radar qualified" ATCO. Shoreham does have ATC but the same scenario is played out at the many non-ATC airfields, none of which could afford ATC salaries, never mind radar.

Class G is going to stay in the UK, and people have to live with it.

Most pilots who fly for real are actually completely happy with loads of Class G, with GPS etc making ATC assistance practically redundant, and by flying above 2000ft you avoid nearly all GA traffic in the UK.

You just get the ambiguous separation issues at the airfields, but this can never be solved because even if the airfield has CAS (Class D) the controller is still not going to provide "guaranteed" separation between VFR traffic.

As I see it, the most important thing is to somehow get through to pilots (old ones and new ones) that climbing at say 2000fpm off the runway is not a great idea. By all means fly a tight circuit if you are sure there is no traffic around, but the rest of the time you should fly a proper rectangular circuit in which you climb "normally" off the runway, and you do the crosswind turn and commence the downwind turn well upwind of any traffic joining crosswind.

[2 sheds]

but I also think that traffic crossing the extended centerline of the take-off run anywhere near the airport is a very, very bad idea.

That all depends on several factors. The more significant factor here was the departing traffic remaining in the circuit and the other aircraft making a direct crosswind join when the pilot did not have the other relevant traffic in sight at that stage.

2 s

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by peterh337

As I see it, the most important thing is to somehow get through to pilots (old ones and new ones) that climbing at say 2000fpm off the runway is not a great idea.

In my very humble opinion, I'd say that's the best piece of advice in this thread. If your flight profile is vastly different to that of the majority of the pattern traffic, you could easily put yourself in a place where others don't expect you to be. It's no replacement for maintaining a proper lookout, but it helps mitigate the risk.

[soaringhigh650]

The UK airspace structure will never change to the US one.

But you have mixed up en-route airspace with terminal airspace.

Shoreham does have ATC but the same scenario is played out at the many non-ATC airfields.

I understand you guys pay a landing fee which includes the navigation service fee?

because even if the airfield has CAS (Class D) the controller is still not going to provide "guaranteed" separation between VFR traffic.

Neither does the US and not all towered fields have radar, but in Class D at least traffic information is meant to be provided. And in my experience with the detail as 2 sheds has tried to highlight.

A factor contributing to the accident was the inadequate traffic advisory information provided by the controllers.