How to get more controled airspace
 

Last week when flying into a regonal airport in very good VMC I was vectored all over the place to avoid a light aircraft , this added about 4 min to the flight. Now that might not seem very much to most of you but the cost to my bosses of an extra 4 min of flying in a 78,000Kg jet won't be lost.

The guy was perfectly within his rights to be flying in the class G airspace without talking to anyone but as he had a transponder with 7000/C showing he would I think have a VHF com and a quick word with the ATC unit could has avoided a lot of extra flying for me and the Easyjet A319 that was following without undue disruption of his flight.

No doubt if the press got hold of this the headlines would read "Holiday jet diverted in near miss terror" and the bean counters would be pushing for yet more controlled airspace and using safety as there excuse to save a bit more money. As it happend at no time did the safety of any aircraft become an issue in this case. But if these inccidents continue the pressure for more airspace to be taken from GA pilots will gain credibility and class G airspace will be lost.

Please remember that places like Coventry, Bristol And Doncaster are no longer sleepy hollow but have a lot of low cost traffic so please talk to the ATC units and help to keep YOUR airspace class G.

But as we all know, he might actually be on the frequency of another service just not on that of the airport in question.

I know the airlines like to think they have priority, but I have been kept orbiting in the hold for 45 minutes at a well-known regional airport with fuel getting lower and lower while charter and low-cost flights diverted from other airfields barge in. Each one added to the delay to my landing because of wake turbulence and led in the end to some declaring fuel emergencies and others going somewhere else

In my view the way that the low-cost airlines behave once they start accessing regional airfields is a scandal - they bring little investment into an area but need their every whim catered to.

Look what happened when Newquay tried to get a tiny bit more from Ryanair to help in funding the airport for when the military leave. Ryanair walked away as they felt a £5 levy would trash their profits

Sorry - but what makes you think that a little commercial benefit justifies an increase in CAS? Nasty little loco charters have chosen second rate airports to fly from purely to cut costs in order to offer yet cheaper flights to alcohol-fuelled oblivion for the pierced, tattoo'd, shell-suited dregs of society. That is no justification for demanding increases in CAS - these 'airlines' (I use the term loosely) chose these cheaper aerodromes in the full knowledge that the airspace between the ATZ and the airways was only Class G...

Currently, ThomsonFly are pushing for an airspace-grab at Coventry. There is no intrinsic need for this - it would merely benefit their shareholders. They should thus accept that there are only 2 options for them:

1. Accept the status quo and the associated cost.
2. Sod off somewhere else where there is the category of airspace they think they need.

There is absolutely no justification for any increase in CAS in the UK - there's plenty as it is. Tough doo-doo if it means that costs of flights to Argos, Asbestos, Domestos and the like will cost €10 more - I have absolutely no sympathy.

A&C - Im sure the replies you may get on this forum are NOT personal but are a response to the way GA is treated by CAT. You only need to look at the thread on 121.5 to see why you may get castigated. I cant say I disagree with your perceived need for ATC contact but please do not expect CAT to have priority always. As Beagle said if it means a few Euros more on a ticket price then so be it. For many of us who pay huge amounts in tax and duty on AVGAS and the like and fund our flying out of TAXED income, the saving of a few tax and duty free litres of avtur for you is very low on our list of priorities.

Out of interest, are you guys not able, or not allowed, to downgrade to a Flight Information Service, and just look out the window to avoid traffic like the rest of us?

I appreciate that the speeds and momentums involved are far higher.... but there are plenty of microlights, gliders and so on which do not show up on a radar display at all, so the requirement to look out the window and avoid visually still exists even when receiving a RAS in VMC. Therefore, surely there's an argument that if your momentum is such that you are not able to safely see and avoid visually, then you ought to slow down, regardless of what type of ATC service you are receiving?

So downgrading to FIS would save you the unnecessary vectors and keep your bosses happy, save us little guys from receiving illegal "instructions" from ATC to keep out of your way, make it less likely for light aircraft to avoid talking to ATC because of these illegal "instructions", and all, arguably, with no reduction in safety!

FFF
-----------------

When I get held waiting for a transit the cost for me is significant.

When I have to route around CAS it is even more significant.

Freedom of the sky is worth protecting.

I am afraid you will not find much support here even if some of us fly commercially as well. :)

Thankfully Beagle's arrogance and capacity for puerile dogmatic replies of no substance are not the views of the majority of GA pilots.

As an Atco, (or Twatco as Beagle has referred to our profession in the past), all we want is pilots to call and let us know where they are and where they are going and the vast majority do.

We are in the same position as the airport described by A&C and frequently have to vector Instrument traffic away from aircraft transiting but not squawking or talking to us, everyone gets a taste of it, from Cessnas training to Boeings and Airbuses earning revenue to keep commercial aviatitors in jobs and airports busy.

Today aircraft to be delayed was an ambulance flight with a critically ill child on board which had to be repositioned back onto the approach because some clot decided to fly through the final approach at 1500ft, at 6nm, sqawking but couldn't be bothered to call us. It took approximately 20 extra track miles and a five minute delay to the ambulance flight.

Its not simply a case of CAT being afforded priority when it comes down to landings and departures sequences, but common sense and safety.
Although I sympathise enormously with the cost of GA etc, the price of fuel is a problem GA have failed to do anything about for many years and is of little relavance in this scenario.

One final point, CAS isn't the Berlin Wall, the vast majority of airports with it (outside the London area) will afford transit through it usually because in their interests to know where you are and what you're doing.

So the guy was squawking 7000C, so what's the problem? The controller knew where he was, which direction he was going and his height.

Althought squawking 7000, he wasn't identified, and we didn't know his intentions because he wasn't talking to anyone, and was in direct conflict with traffic under a Radar Advisory Service.

That was the problem.

I think there may be some confusion on this thread.

I dont think there is any excuse for poor airmanship.

OK you can legally be below the localiser in open FIR without communicatiing with the CAS controller but we would all accept this is poor airmanship. From my point of view I should have made this clear. Equally I trust everyone is happy you be there as long as you are communicating. After all it costs nothing.

I suspect there is also an element of education. New pilots may well not appreciate the problems this can cause in bound traffic.

I apologise if I gave an alternative impression. I assume on reflection this was the scenario A and C had in mind.

So, niknak, advise your aircraft under RAS (was it in VMC although operating under IFR?) that standard separation cannot be maintained due to unknown VFR traffic and ask whether the aircraft commander will accept a RIS - or even a FIS.

Testing weather today where you practise your art, was it?

Insult me as much as you like - freedom of airspace against unreasonable overcontrol is worth fighting for.

Many airlines do not allow their aircraft to accept anything less than a RAS outside CAS, there are also insurance implications.

If you can't accept anything other than a RAS outside CAS, then don't use airports in Class G airspace. And, more particularly, don't expect changes in airspace to suit your commercial aspirations.

Beagle I agree with much of what you say but why do you object (if you do) with the pilot at least communicating with the CAS controller. After all as I commented earlier that costs nothing. If the controller wants him to change his track he can of course politely refuse.

Today, the whole country had 50 mile VMC. Are you telling us that an ambulance flight (Helo? Kingair? Islander? Light twinjet?) could not go to an FIS, with you giving them information about the conflicting traffic, which, let us remember, was squawking 7000 Mode Charlie so you knew where it was, which way it was going and how high it was?

QDM

7000 and mode C don't really mean a huge amount as the alt given is unverified, so treated as potentially suspect.

It can be very aggravating when you are held up by a light a/c, but a small delay isn't anything to worry about really. 4 mins of fuel in something like a 319 in descent at idle is not insignificant, but neither is it going to bankrupt a company.

Personally, I've been more annoyed by people giving their life histories over the R/T when we're just screaming through the localiser, or getting a bit hot and and high waiting for clearance to descend.

Should there be more CAS? I don't think so. Aviation in this country is overly geared towards the airlines and I think that whilst due to professional courtesy, they will get priority, they actually have no greater rights than any other type of aeroplane.
How many a/c are on the British register? What % are public transport and what % are light a/c? I think it's around 10% and 90% from an article I read. So the vast majority are being discriminated against for the financial benefit of the few.

Niknak, in all fairness I imagine the pilot who delayed the ambulance flight would be mortified if they realised what had happened and whilst airmanship dictates that he should have called. How many times has a similar flight been "dumped".

The actions of many controllers at "regional" field's, does sometimes leave a lot to be desired. I for one am tired of being told to "maintain a good lookout" when there are more than 2 /c within 50 miles of my present position. I don't need to be told what to do if all I'm doing is alerting them to my intentions whilst OCA.
Couple this to the fact that as soon as the freq. get's busy with more than a couple of commercial inbounds, giving a FIS seems to be a hindrance and we are immediately dumped to information instead of radar. I have no problem with this and actually prefer it due to the lesser amount of radio traffic, but it does mean that next time I'm less likely to use the radar facility as I assume they don't actually want to talk to me...... (I know full well the reality of this, but I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.)

I used to be based in Coventry and so often had to run the gauntlet of mixing it with training flights. If it was a nice day and we were wide awake (a rare occurance!) then we would often downgrade to a FIS and just fly back visually, both to try and ease the controllers workload and to just enjoy the flight more ourselves. We used to have far more problems with the proximity to BHX and their commercial traffic than with light aircraft. In fact I can't ever remember having any issues with GA traffic at all. (Apart from an airprox with a glider inside the LTMA, but that's a different story!)

There are a few controllers who seem to want the whole of UK airspace to be controlled and all of us to be on pre-approved flight plans, but hopefully this will never occur. At the end of the day all controllers are there to assist every pilot who needs their help to complete a safe flight. It shouldn't matter if they are a PPL on a bimble, or a 747 with 3 engines out. Whilst airmanship dictates that you should think about other people, sometimes it is nice just to turn the radio down or off and just cruise with the sound of the engine and the wind in the wires, that's the beauty of flying and it isn't illegal quite yet.......

NN, out of interest, if the a/c concerned had been a microlight, with no transponder and limited radio facilities, would you have even noticed them? Would the delay have occured?

Company SOPs may not allow that to happen and why should a pilot carrying a critically ill child have to worry about a FIS when they requested a RIS or RAS.

Maybe they should have blue flashing lights - then those of us who look out of the window can tell what they are........

Then the company SOPs are stupid if they constrain the pilot's leeway on a day like today.

An ambulance pilot seems unlikely to be stressed by such a minor occurrence on a day like this. If he / she is, then they are in the wrong job.

This sounds to me like mindless application of protocols.

QDM

I stick with the guidance I was taught many years ago - avoid flying within 10 nm of an aerodrome with a published instrument approach procedure unless you're in 2 way RT contact with them.

I'm entirely happy to advise such aerodromes who I am, where I am - and what I'm doing under VFR, so that they can use that information for their purposes and reduce the mandatory separation they have to provide to IFR aircraft choosing to fly under a RAS.

Commercial operators choosing to fly into places such as Coventry, Exeter or Kirmington should understand that uncontrolled VFR flights may be operating right up to the edge of the ATZ. But pilots of such uncontrolled VFR aircraft should also use a bit of commonsense and not act in a manner which will endanger or seriously inconvenience others.

I am caught between two stools here.

But I tend to fall on the side of the GA guys.

Firstly, I have heard the tales of operators insurers stating that it is RAS or nothing. In which case the policy is not worth the paper it is written on since that service can never ever be guaranteed anywhere. I have also seen the Ops Manuals of quite a few operators whose pilots have stated the same case and what the document actually says (in each one I have seen) is that the pilot must take advantage of the 'best service available' or words to that effect. If the best service (to aid an expeditious approach for example) is purely FIS, then that is what the Ops Manual allows ... and what the pilot should accept, or perish the thought, REQUEST. It's all down to intelligent interpretation ... and not blind acceptance. Maybe the problem is a generation of 250 hour ATPLs ???

I think my second point is that pilots of CAT are generally (with strong emphasis on the general part) ignorant of the various services ATC can provide and the restrictions placed on ATC within each in terms of separation, traffic information, etc. As mentioned, under a RAS, regardless of Met conditions, ATC need to aim for a separation standard regardless. With excellent vis and little cloud cover, any pilot knowing the rules and having been passed traffic information could quite safely 'downgrade' to a RIS and get his head out of the cockpit, look for, and avoid, the traffic. In Class G airspace, it's what he/she should be bloody well be doing anyway even if under a RAS. 'See and avoid' is the over arching rule for everyone. It makes no exceptions. If any CAT operators can't accept this ... then they should make the skies safer for us all and fly in airspace where cotton wool ATC is given ... i.e. CAS of Class C or above (Class E and Class D will still allow VFRs with no 'standard' separation applied.) Alternatively ... wait until all of the route can be flown in CAS.

Finally ... some areas have a good case for more CAS ... others not so. It is for each airfield or operator to make it's relevant case which the CAA will then judge on its merits. What the CAA will look for is for the minimum amount of airspace to be granted to facilitate the safe conduct of flights of traffic in and around the airspace, if it is justified. The fact that those who can't make the case then encounter GA traffic and have to get out of their way sometimes (either because legally the have to in accordance with the Rules of The Air, or because the ATC service they are receiving requires them to) is a fact of life. GA traffic can also cite instances where their ops are hampered by commercial operations. It's a quid pro quo.

I'm afraid the 'Sun' headline stuff about 'ambulance flight delayed by light aircraft' cuts no ice here. Who is to say that the GA aircraft didn't have right of way ... was unsure of position and the pilot panicking a bit ..... had a sick passenger on board who was not used to flying .... was running short of fuel ..... had a dodgy alternator ...... etc, etc, etc, etc. No one ... that's who. If there's a real problem with priority, get the ambulance flight in high to the overhead and then carry out manouevres within the protection of ATZ or CTZ to ensure a safe and controlled approach without having to worry about the rules for flight in 'uncontrolled' airspace.

Outside CAS, there are equal rights (within the limits and requirements of the ANO). If CAT wants preference, they will continue to find it within airspace where the vast majority of GA is excluded ... either by pilot qualification or aircraft equippage. It's called Controlled Airspace :ok:

Beagle - Kirmington do not like being called that. They are very important now they are Humberside INTERNATIONAL airport. I did once ask where Humberside DOMESTIC is but recived no response!

A point missed by some !
 

I am not in vavour of more CAS but my point is the pressure will be on GA to use airspace consideratly or it will become CAS, Beagle may consider the pax on low cost airlines "scum" but he should remember that money talks and there are a lot more "scum" than GA pilots and if GA can't see a changing situation and react to it then it will suffer.

As to the services that can be excepted by a CAT flight I am happy with RIS in good VMC but it has to be RAS in IMC however I doubt if most of the young first officers that I fly with know the difference ! we now have a breed of autopilot in at 400ft and out at 200ft FMC obsessed aircraft opperators who spend most of the time head down pushing buttons on the FMC, I encorage the use of the big reality displays ( windows to most people !) but I have an uphill task when these people have only 300 hours total time and very little flying skill.

God help us all when this new JAA CPL turns up and these people only do about 35 hours in a real aircraft and the rest in the sim

I'm surprised it isn't John Prescott International these days, WorkingHard!

Or, perhaps more appropriately, Bransholme International given that its chief reason for being is to ferry the low life from that Hull-hole to wherever the alcohol is cheap.

Surely its days as an international airport are numbered with RobinDoncasterFinningleyHood spaceport now open?

Anyway, back to the plot. I don't accept that RAS is 'mandatory' in IMC. Given the SA provided by RIS and the relative freedom to make your own decisions based on that is sometimes eaier than being given avoidance turns on every track within 5nm which hasn't been positively identified - even if that traffic is tracking away from you.

At present, quality airline recruiters consider that around 50% of unemployed fATPL holders are virtually unemployable. They simply are NOT the sort of people they want sharing their flight decks. When the ICAO MPL comes along, you can expect to share your beloved Class A airspace with some very inexperienced pilots with 70 hours flight time in real aeroplanes. Hopefully the JAA version of the MPL - or more probably the EASA version - will require initial selection and considerable airline involvement, but there's no guarantee of that.

yes ! thats why the airlines are getting very good deals to use Kirmington the owners (Manchester airport group) are in a blind panic !.

I would rather be at an airport to the west a little way with a longer runway, performance is not an issue at the ex-V bomber base.

There are a few places where new CAS is required and those places do have applications in with DAP.
I am however a great supporter of Class G airspace and people out enjoying themselves able to simply get on with flying without a need to speak to anyone. That however does bring with it a responsibility as BEagle has already said of maintaining a distance from IAPs for example.
The vast majority do, they fly without causing any problems to anyone it is however the very small minority who end up causing these debates. Most of those who cause the difficulties appear to be simply ignorant, they are the ones whom i worry less about, it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone.

"it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone."

A very sad day when we change the policy to suite a very small minority.

Drunks can cause us all a few problems from time to time - the answer could be to ban alcohol.

Things change.

Look at how Liverpool (17 LCC Boeings) and Bristol (9 LCC Airbuses) for example have grown busier and busier over the last decade. See how the likes of Finningley and Coventry are headed the same way.

Airspace should not and will not remain static in the face of changed realities. If air travel was in decline it would be possible to remove CAS. The opposite is the reality.

The area where there is real scope to open up airspace is the military. The Navy does not use and cannot justify the huge danger areas they maintain in the South of England. The RAF with its dwindling fleet still demands most of the East coast of England to itself. Accomodating the military in the airspace over England puts them in some of the most highly congested airspace in the world. With the whole RAF standing at a little over 40,000 staff they could all be accomodated in Inverness and be out of everyones way and spend a lot less time transiting to ranges and low flying areas.

GA pilots should be in favour of having more controlled airspace where it is justified by the commercial realities of an airport getting busier. They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance.

GA would be faced with mandatory Mode S TCAS and that includes you glider boy and microlight man. But then the insurance companies would have grounded most of the GA fleet the day after the air disaster anyway.

Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots.

Cheers

WWW

You may have a point, but have a look at the PFAs response to the Coventry proposals.

They make a reasoned case for reducing the proposed CAS around Coventry as being disproportionate. It is a many times larger area per movement than any of the London Airports for around 5 movements a day.

It appears that the airport want to accommodate the low-cost airlines which, to save fuel, chose not to use the existing CAS but take a short-cut through Class G.

Thee are similar proposals at other expanding regional airfields but all need to be viewed critically, and reduced to a reasonable extent.

What we don't want though is the case of a mid-air collision when a commercial jet decides to take a shortcut, thinking they have automatic right of way.

By the way, are airline pilots taught to look out? 70 hours actual flight time seems incredibly low and I would question the real-world airmanship of a pilot with that level of experience in the air

WWW I think your response is sound and reasonable. You say "Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots."
Absolutely agree but the polarisation comes from different sides. It is not GA that is necessarily doing the polarisation. We have stacked against us, military, CAT, some atcos (note some please), a number of airports that see GA as somehow demeaning if they accomodate us and of course the good old CAA. comparisons with other countries, especially the USA, shows this polarisation in the UK to be unneccessary on safety grounds.

I have been asked why the proposed airspace surrounding Cardiff and Bristol is so complex, well DAP insists you request only the minimum that you can safely accommodate your movements within.
When putting the proposal together there was no question of putting in a request for more airspace on the basis they would ask you to reduce the size, we had from the start to put in a realistic proposal.
DAP quite rightly insists that all airspace users are considered hence why we have what on the face of it looks a very complicated piece of Class D airspace coming in, the minimum class D required for a safe operation.

Locally there have been very few problems as they know Class D transits are not a problem but equally there is still a considerable amount of Class G. It is to some seen also as a benefit as they know when it comes in that ATC will not have the same requirement to wish to talk to aircraft flying out in Class G.

Carefully planned airspace should have a minimum impact on most GA users, equally if you are Class D and there is difficulty due workload issues or density of traffic to accommodate VFR perhaps the airspace should be of higher category.

Robin, COV had 3 737's belonging to ThompsonFly who should be looking at an average of 7 movements a day..

All airline pilots are taught to look out because at one point all airline pilots were PPL's - some of us still are. I have seen and avoided in my 737 more light aircraft than have seen and avoided me - one on Saturday springs to mind.

I know you in GA feel persecuted and unloved. Its because you are. But don't lash out at commercial aviation as it's us who pay the bills (along with the MoD). Unless you fly from your own grass strip then I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy (air is free but hangars and runways and ATC are not).

Cheers

WWW

"I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy"

Oooh do tell, so what resources would those be then :confused:

By that token, WWW, then most of us have probably have a certain Cpl A Hitler to thank, actually...

If he hadn't caused so much trouble in the first place, there would perhaps have been no World War 2, no RAF expansion and no disused aerodromes later.

Daft logic, of course. But no more so than yours.

Locos who choose to operate from smaller, cheaper airports with only Class G airspace and a RAS to keep their IFR aircraft away from legitimate GA traffic happily operating under VFR must include the extra fuel costs as part of their business plans.

Either that or go elsewhere.

"They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance."

I dont think so.

The ATCO (nee TWATCO) will get the blame.

The PFA response looks at the number of flights throughout the year and proportioned the runway that would force the extension of the airspace. This works out cuurently at around 4-5 a day. Compare that with movements at Gatwick which has not asked for such a massive expansion

I would doubt that. When flying my glider, when you hear a piston engine or a jet engine, your head starts moving about (and one's sphincter does other things) until you have identified the aircraft in question.

I know of few pilots who are likely to lose sight of a 737. They do however lose sight of microlights, gliders and small aircraft. So shoving us into smaller and smaller corridors (Luton/Stanstead corridor, the CPT honeypot, the Brize/Lyneham area, for instance) only adds to our risks

Many years ago, the great Philip Wills was involved in the design of the Luton Airspace around Dunstable. Reps from the CAA, the airlines, the airport and ATC were chuntering on about extending the airspace to ensure safe passage for airliners. Huge areas of airspace for a small number of commercial aircraft were proposed. He stopped the discussions dead in their tracks when he asked the simple question - 'who is responsible for flight outside the controlled airspace'. Then the powers that be were smart enough to understand that by restricting open FIR they increase disproportionately the risks to VFR flight. 90% of flight is done in the sport and light aircraft sector, but we are being squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of unregulated airspace.

Of course, when the collisions then happen, like the accident at Brookman Park, there is a call for more regulated airspace. In reality what is needed is less, so we have a fighting chance of passing each other in safety



Wrong. I actually find that the commercial operators are responsible for many of the unnecessary bills I have to pay. Flying from strips, I don't need the Mode S, at times not even a radio,

This is a joke, right?

LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as.

BEagle you seem to think that Locos simply transport scumbags on beer tours. Whereas in fact my 572 domestic passengers yesterday carried only 254 bags... the majority were wearing suits and carrying laptops.

Robin, speaking as a gliding instructor I find your defence of being able to hear other aircraft remarkable. I'm doing 287mph at 4,000ft. I hope your lookout is really sharp as I weigh 57 tons and you weigh approximately the same as my rear galley.

I want to avoid an accident between a commercial airliner and a GA aircraft. What do you want?

Cheers

WWW

Why does everyone thinks that they avoid more aircraft, than other aircraft avoid them?

Is it because they are better pilots?

Or is it because they don't ever see all the aircraft that actually turn to avoid them? How can you count the aircraft that you never saw.....never knew was there, but turned to avoid hitting you?

dp

"LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as."

Nonsense.

LoCos move to cheaper airports, then try to use their muscle to grab airspace. If they'd remained at airports which already have CAS and which are under utillised it would have cost them more.

Simple as.