Hawarden RMZ now operational
 

Hawarden class G airspace RMZ has become operational from 30 March, so now spacing of aircraft will be the responsibility of the Radar Operator, who because of the limitations of the radar system and the delay in RTF, has to keep us at least 3000ft and 5 miles apart.
(A good pilot holding onto the aircraft's control column, and therefore in direct control of his aircraft, is quite adept at maintaining a much smaller separation when aware of other aircraft, using the 'see and avoid' technique.)

This RMZ has most likely been prompted because the number of Baluga flights sometimes doubles to more than one a day.
Hawarden will not be manned 24hrs, so I don't know what the procedure will be outside these hours.
.

Thanks for info. But what is a "Baluga flight"? I found Baluga to be a village in Serbia :confused:

It should be "beluga" or more accurately "Airbus A300-600ST". Sometimes as many as 4 arrivals a day. The operation has been going on for years with very few problems but Airbus love to assert their authority. Outside Hawarden operating hours the RMZ zone is not operational.

HD

I think he meant Beluga.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

scifi - you seem very muddled in your criticism of the RMZ introduction. Why should a radar controller (not operator!) now have to keep "us" 3,000ft and 5nm apart as a result of this? It all depends on what service you and others have requested and there would be no obligation to accept anything other than the default Basic Service. Actually, with your co-operation of course, much lower minima could be employed for any traffic under Deconfliction Service. You could even get a close-up view of a Beluga!
HD - it really is unrealistic to comment that "Airbus love to assert their authority". Although the application might be in their name, do you really think that is their motive when the impetus inevitably would have come from the ANSP. And how do you arrive at your assessment of "very few problems"?

2 s

I don't see a problem with the new RMZ. I used to call them when flying about that area anyway, and now I simply have to, but there is no change in what I can and cannot do in terms of where I fly and whether I need permission to do so. Yet overall it is safer because Hawarden will now have a better idea what everyone is up to. What's not to like?

Rather a negative posting by scifi.
I supported the airspace proposal - I thought it proportional and well thought out.
You do not have to contact Hawarden Radar - you can use the listening squawk and they will contact you if necessary.
The Belugas are enormous beasts that were flying in class G airspace - the alternative would have been more restrictive class D airspace.

* ok, so Beluga it had to be, thanks.

* if it really is class G then the radio is operated by an operator not by a controller - a controller is a person who has control, but class G is not controlled per definition. Or so this simple mind thinks. What will be the tasks/responsability/authority of the ground party? Methinks no instructions can be given, only information, about what traffic has been reported/observed when and where and with which stated intentions, if any. Surely in class G nobody can state "AB-CDE, join right hand down wind 19L" or "ZY-XWV, descend 3000" ?

Jan, you need to look at Procedural Service...

Hm. Do I really? What is "Procedural Service" anyway? It was not in the syllabus when I took ground class some 10 years ago - or I should have forgotten, which is not impossible, not at all :)

Might well be another UK peculiarity. Oh well. Till proof of the contrary, "Class G" is to me absolutely equal to "non-controlled". But on another occasion I have heard rumours that the UK seems to have controlled aerodromes in non-controlled airspace, too - comprenne qui peut.

True! One would think that the UK CAA would have better command of the English language. Maybe it would be better for UK Air Traffic Control Service outside controlled airspace to be renamed Air Traffic Advisory Service...!

Hi 2 sheds, for the 5 mile 3000ft separation I was thinking of any Belugas or other IFR traffic having to be separated from us Cessna types.
I have flown near to and landed after the Beluga, after having been informed to keep so many minutes separation, for wake turbulence.
.

There is no requirement for VFR/IFR separation in Class D CAS, let alone in class G.

flybymike,
Correct.

ATC will pass the recommended spacing for wake turbulence, but it's up to pilots to separate themselves and not mandatory.

Scifi - those criteria would only apply if you constituted unknown traffic. However, with the RMZ you can be identified, and with your kind agreement - the controller (yes, Jan, controller, providing various levels of service under the umbrella of "FIS")can then apply lesser minima for traffic under a Deconfliction Service. It would be phrased as "for co-ordination request...". It's Class G airspace so you are entitled to refuse the request, though that rarely happens - but if it does it is generally for a sound operational reason. May I commend CAP774 to your attention.
As mentioned above, you would not have been instructed to keep x miles behind a Beluga, it would have been advice based on your relative WT categories; you can always ignore it and make a high approach above his WT.
Regards
2 s
.

A year or 3 back Southend was issued with a RMZ. Not very long afterwards it became a control zone. Will history repeat itself?

@ 2_sheds: thanks for your patience, I am afraid I am handicapped with a literal mind... To me a "controller" is a person exerting "control" iow someone with authority. When I took ground class, and subsequently the then separate R/T course, I was told again and again that there is a strict distinction between "control" and "service". It seems this distinction is less firm, to say the least, in the UK. That may work (more or less) for those used to it, but I still fail to see the reason why, and I must admit it annoys me beyond reason. Is there any reason to call a "chair" a "table"? Why then call a FIS operator a controller?

On second thought, the rationale seems to be the creation of a very "soft" transition from "controlled" to "non-controlled". Laudable as that concept may be, most continental FIR's have gone the other way. My own EBBU FIR for one example only has classes A, D and G; and there is no way the (one and single) FIS operator of Belgian class G would even begin to suggest one should head so much or descend to such or such. The furthest I ever heard them go was "xx-xxx, you are about to enter EByy airspace, change to EByy tower at abc.de". And that works fairly well, in a difficult and busy airspace we have no more than the usual share of midairs and other airproxes.

One sticks to what one is used to, I suppose. Which is another reason for me to avoid those queer Brits and their funny bits of airspace, begging your pardon. Vivat Brexit! Splendid isolation!

You are right Jan. Even in the UK class G is class G. RMZ simply means you need to talk to the right ground station and tell them what you're doing. No element of control.

Isn't that Class D? or even C? Certainly in the US they would use Class D... requirement for Radio contact but no specific control over you.

arra - This is not the US. It has been emphasised above that it remains Class G, but there is a requirement to establish communications with the ATC unit.

2 s