Pressure settings under a TMA

[alex90]

Why are you so keen to stay under the TMA instead of flying in it and getting a service?

For most of us, it isn't an option. London TMA is class A airspace which requires a valid instrument rating, but more importantly being in the vicinity of Gatwick, Heathrow, City, Southend, Luton and Stansted airports, in addition to smaller jet hubs such as Biggin, Oxford, Farnborough... There is considerable commercial traffic in the London TMA.

[n5296s]

This whole issue stems from the idiotic organisation of airspace and traffic services in the UK. At all other places I know, each one given point, as defined by latitude/longitude/elevation, belongs to one and exactly one part of airspace, with one and exactly one service in charge. So, depending on where you are, you call the relevant service and they tell you what QNH to set. Solved. Why the UK absolutely wants all this vagueness and confusion is beyond me.

Ironically the largest GA-friendly country in the world (maybe second largest, not sure about Canada) has no such notion. I've never heard of regional QNH in the US. You pick up altimeter settings along the way. If you're VFR, you avoid the hard stuff by spotting it before it you hit it. If you're IFR, every controller you speak to will give you the appropriate value. No idea how they managed IFR before they had radios - that would be pretty much before I was born (which was NOT that recent).

Jan's comment is not strictly true. For example, right here where I'm sitting there are several different frequencies, under different authority, that I could be talking to, depending on altitude. Conceivably they could be giving different altimeter settings. Though it's most unlikely they'd differ by more than a small fraction of an inch (whatever that is in millibars).

[octavian]

Airbornestu regarding your post #21, I think you have a far greater understanding of the airspace over the UK than you give yourself credit for, notably your recognition that without an IR you can't operate in Class A airspace; not something that all pilots realise.

Do be mindful, however, that Class D is accessible to you in VFR (and under SVFR in certain conditions) and don't be afraid to ask. ATC should only refuse your proposal for their traffic reasons, but may need you to modify your routing on a tactical basis.

To get someone else of experience to cast an eye over your plans is a good idea. Whatever you do, enjoy the flying and always have an alternative plan in mind in case "Plan A" can't be achieved.

[27/09]

Do I have the correct understanding? That is, is some parts of the UK the local/regional/area QNH that is being set by pilots (received from an ATC unit) is the forecast QNH.

If true I find that a very unusual way of doing business. We all know how (in)accurate forecasts are.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by airpolice

Why are you so keen to stay under the TMA instead of flying in it and getting a service?

TMAs in the UK are Class A airspace so you will need to file an IFR flight plan to enter.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by 27/09

Do I have the correct understanding? That is, is some parts of the UK the local/regional/area QNH that is being set by pilots (received from an ATC unit) is the forecast QNH.

If true I find that a very unusual way of doing business. We all know how (in)accurate forecasts are.

In the UK, civil aircraft flying in Class G airspace below the transition altitude and not under a TMA would normally use a forecast RPS except when communicating with a civil ATC or AFIS unit who would give them a current observed QNH. If in communication with a military airfield, they would be given the QFE of that airfield but could request QNH. This may change (again) in the near future.
When a common transition altitude is agreed (hopefully) in the near future, forecast RPS will probably be discontinued.

[patowalker]

As for my misconceptions: I am willing to learn better, feel free to explain what I have misunderstood about the organisation of UK airspace and services. I still understand that at many places, pilots have a free choice of whom to talk to and that seems very unnatural to me, and needlessly confusing, and a potential cause for miscommunication.

As for my _many_ misconceptions: which are the others?

It is not needlesly confusing if you look up the AIP. ENR 1.7 is clear on the OP question:

3.9 Airspace within all Control Zones (CTRs), and within and below all Terminal Control Areas (TMAs), Control Areas (CTAs) except Airways and the Worthing and Clacton Control Areas, during their notified hours of operation, does not form part of the ASR Regional Pressure Setting system.
3.10 When flying in Airspace below TMAs and CTAs detailed above, pilots should use the QNH of an adjacent aerodrome when flying at or below the Transition Altitude. It may be assumed that for aerodromes located beneath such Areas, the differences in the QNH values are insignificant. When flying beneath Airways whose base levels are expressed as Altitudes pilots are recommended to use the QNH of an adjacent aerodrome in order to avoid penetrating the base of Controlled Airspace.

You seem to think that flying in the UK is difficult and confusing, when it is not.

If you ever visit, the CAA will not insist that you file a FPL for internal flights and that each flight is notified to them in advance by email, as the BCAA does when I fly my permit aircraft in Belgium.

[alex90]

You seem to think that flying in the UK is difficult and confusing, when it is not.

It isn't... No... It is rather simple... Once you get But it is by no means as straight forward as I have experienced in many places in Europe, and NZ.

Literature provided by the UK CAA is abysmal at best! It is segregated, and very hard to find. For instance the Farnborough LARS guide that I posted, I have NO idea where to find it on the UK CAA's website (or NATS website - but really this is a PILOT GUIDE and should really be available on the CAA's website or the AIP in my mind).

If you look at NZ CAA, they actually publish a wealth of information for pilots, even print booklets and send them to ATOs to give their students for FREE! (yes I did say free). Have a look at: https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety-info/...tion-practice/ where they have a load of useful guides... Alongside a load of tuition aid / memos for all sorts of flying related items.

I really think that there is considerable room for improvement with how they organise both themselves (8 weeks to issue a licence is crazy) and their literature (or lack thereof) and mostly regulations (which nobody understands...)

I hope that one day overpaid management at the UK CAA will realise that they're not delivering the service that is expected from a "world leader".

[eckhard]

My own view is that the use of RPS is unnecessary and the sooner we all operate on QNH and plan carefully, the better.

Hear, hear!!

[Jan Olieslagers]

@alex90: thanks. But frankly, it has been quite long since I heard anybody hailing the UK as a world leader; more's the pity.

@Patowalker: what particularly annoys me is that, in the UK, two planes can be flying (outside controlled airspace), each doing their R/T with a different ground station (and perhaps with a different level of service, but I'll not even start about that). I hope this is a realistic example: one might be talking to Farnborough, the other to Brize Norton. So that the two of them, while doing the maximum possible effort in matters of communication, will not even be aware of one another's presence; except if told by the ground station they are tuned into - but these are under no obligation, and may well be too busy. Of course the pilots need to use their Mk1 eyeball anyway, there can always be nordo flyers around too. But in my part of the world, and in most, as far as I know, everybody flying OCAS will be on the one and only FIS frequency so that at least they hear what everybody is doing, and where.

That the UK sees a need to do as many things as differently as they can from the rest of Europe is less of a concern to me, basically; SERA is slowly taking care of that. And we should not expect everything to be the same as we are used to at home; indeed I must certainly admit my home country is less than exemplary on its rules for foreign Annex 2 aeroplanes. But, as said, the UK has a lot of room to make its rules of the air simpler, and more conform to the rest of the nearby world.

Regarding regional QNH settings: again, I am not for defending the system, and I am sorry if my words may have come across that way. But if anything is to be done about that anachronism, it will have to come from EASA.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

But in my part of the world, and in most, as far as I know, everybody flying OCAS will be on the one and only FIS frequency so that at least they hear what everybody is doing, and where.

Doesn't "OCAS" mean "outside controlled airspace" in your part of the world then? Do you have a requirement to be controlled when not in controlled airspace?

In the UK "OCAS" means what it says on the tin. There are various services offering varying degrees of help, but it's your choice which, if any, of them you feel like using, which may well be "none" if you, perfectly legitimately, don't have a radio, and may be "none" if you don't feel the need to talk to anyone. (Obviously various considerations of airmanship issues would come into such a decision, and personally I'm more likely to keep a listening watch on a relevant service than turn the radio off altogether.)

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yes, I must apologise for (for this once) relying on an acronym - I was actually trying to conform to forum habits

Yes, I meant "outside controlled airspace", which is why I mentioned a Flight Information Service, too, and not a controller. Still, many pilots tune in, and offer position reports, so that one gets to know about a part of nearby traffic.

And yes, a listening watch is what I'll often do, too. As my craft is not transponder equipped, FIS can not do very much for me anyway, though they do have occasionally warned me of possibly conflicting traffic on the flimsy base of position reports, and perhaps primary radar - they were quite accurate!

[patowalker]

For instance the Farnborough LARS guide that I posted, I have NO idea where to find it on the UK CAA's website (or NATS website - but really this is a PILOT GUIDE and should really be available on the CAA's website or the AIP in my mind).

Why would you expect to find a leaflet published by the company that provides Farnborough LARS on the CAA website? The AIP follows an international standard, so it could hardly be included there in its present format.

A comparison between CAAs is only fair if they are funded in the same way. The UK Government requires that CAA costs are met entirely from charges to those they provide a service to or regulate.

Jan,

It's not worth you getting annoyed about what happens in the UK, especially if you have no intention of flying here.
I believe you fly a Eurofox. Did you know over 80 have been sold in the UK?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Actually I fly an Apollo Fox, a Hungarian-built close cousin to the Eurofox. There's only a few obvious differences, the main gear track width and the door locks come to mind, but to the eye and to the pilot they are very very similar.

And yes I know there's a good many Eurofoxes in the UK, as there are a fair amount of C42's, which are more or less similar too, less similar in appearance but quite the same in performance and behaviour. Always surprising the Brits seem to have not created a local equivalent, or if they have then it is not flying in numbers. Or is that another misconception of mine?

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by alex90

Literature provided by the UK CAA is abysmal at best! It is segregated, and very hard to find. For instance the Farnborough LARS guide that I posted, I have NO idea where to find it on the UK CAA's website (or NATS website - but really this is a PILOT GUIDE and should really be available on the CAA's website or the AIP in my mind).
I hope that one day overpaid management at the UK CAA will realise that they're not delivering the service that is expected from a "world leader".

Southampton do an excellent 'glossy brochure' guide to flying in the vicinity of the Solent CTR/CTA.
By the way, the UK CAA do not provide ATS ('deliver a service'), that's up to Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) who are regulated by the CAA

[Airbornestu]

Originally Posted by chevvron

Southampton do an excellent 'glossy brochure' guide to flying in the vicinity of the Solent CTR/CTA.
By the way, the UK CAA do not provide ATS ('deliver a service'), that's up to Air Navigation Service Providers who are regulated by the CAA

Thanks, I'll see if I can find a copy

[India Four Two]

but on my chart it's shown as Class A airspace, and as I hold only a PPL and no IR, I'm not allowed to - for jolly good reasons which I fully understand.

Airbornestu,

I don't think there are any "jolly good reasons" for the London TMA being Class A - I think it's just the CAA's attitude towards GA and their inability to think "out of the box".

Los Angeles is a Class B zone but there are five VFR routes available in the area, including two that pass directly over the top of LAX:

1. The Mini Route from Santa Monica (SMO) to Hawthorne (HHR) at 2500', which requires a clearance from SMO or HHR towers as appropriate and then coordination with LAX tower.

2. The Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area at 3500' or 4500' depending on direction. There is NO requirement for a clearance - you just set a listening squawk and make position reports on a dedicated frequency.

I've flown both routes and it is such a pleasure to fly with such minimal restrictions compared to UK airspace.

Here's the partially completed LAX Bradley International Terminal from 2500', southbound on the Mini Route:



AOPA has an excellent page on how to fly VFR in the Los Angeles area:

https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advoca...nsition-routes

[piperboy84]

142 just to clarify, was that pic of your pass over LAX taken with a handsome, well educated young chap at the helm ?

[alex90]

Why would you expect to find a leaflet published by the company that provides Farnborough LARS on the CAA website? The AIP follows an international standard, so it could hardly be included there in its present format.

Please feel free to educate me! I am happy to learn. I can only respond to your question by another question: if not NATS's website, if not the CAA's website (who surely oversee NATS don't they?), and not the AIP's website (AIP stands for Aeronautical Information Publications - does it not? Is this not an aeronautical publication? [which the common person can understand without requiring further discussion with a lawyer!]) - where DO you find the guide? And more importantly, where do you find ALL guides for flying in these regions in one single place, reliably updated every time a change is made?

A comparison between CAAs is only fair if they are funded in the same way. The UK Government requires that CAA costs are met entirely from charges to those they provide a service to or regulate.

I entirely disagree with this statement. If a service is to be provided, the service should be taken like for like, irrespective of funding and/or politics which may or may not affect its provision, or any other single variable beyond the control of the customer. The single end goal of this SERVICE being provided, is to do just that, provide a service. If the service is good, you rate it so. If the service is bad, you rate it so. I received a licence within 2 weeks after I sent my application in NZ by post, in the UK I waited 8 weeks and they managed to damage my logbook to the extent of needing to getting it re-bound (twice). Why should you as a customer need to factor in any variable beyond your experience as a paying customer? (please enlighten me)

If funding is the issue - as you state - then it is the failure of the UK CAA to identify their funding problem and review their funding schemes. Why should all customers need to suffer and just accept inadmissible service?

anyway... rant over...

[n5296s]

without an IR you can't operate in Class A airspace; not something that all pilots realise.

Really? Heathrow is now Class C iirc, but back when it was Class A to the ground, I flew through its edges on an SVFR clearance. As it happens I do have an IR, but since I was flying G-reg on an FAA license [sic] it would only count as an IMC rating, not an IR. I didn't get the impression it even occurred to anyone to think about it. And the heli route that goes right over the top of LHR predates the change to Class C. Presumably there was some kind of special exemption from the IR requirement if you were SVFR.

"Real" Class A (ICAO flavor, as - remarkably - implemented in FAA land) does indeed require an IR, but in the US it starts at FL180. There are glider pilots who have an IR for the sole purpose of being able to fly legally above 18000'.