What muscle would that be exactly? The muscle that comes from securing the jobs of the ATC, baggage handlers, check in staff, refuelers, despatchers, cleaners, caterers, car park attendents, bar staff and shop keepers?

Not to mention the customers who are paying to be able to use the airport and its new routes.

Should no expansion of air travel be allowed? If not then how do you justify any expansion of GA? Not that there is any. :(

We have always lead the field in aviation in this country. We do so at the moment with low cost aviation. That is a fact to be applauded by anyone with an interest in aviation.

It really is not difficult to totally avoid CAS or to obtain a service from the controlling agent. If you want great open expanses of uncotrolled airspace with cheap fuel and free flight following services then move to Arizona.

Cheers

WWW

Response to Coventry proposals for controlled airspace from the PFA:

www.bluerobin.flyer.co.uk/PFAResponse.pdf

Factor of airspace efficiency might add something to this thread.

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

I want to avoid a collision between two GA aircraft. The more CAS you create the more choke points you create.

Are the commercial service providers going to pay for better services outside CAS - I dont think so. In fact their latest drive has been to increase the administrative costs passed on to GA.

Lets not forget GA on the whole doesnt want or need CAS, LARS, RIF, RAS, FI, LI, or any other service for that matter. On the whole it also doesnt want large airports. It should be up to the commercial operators to accomodate GA.

I hate to mention the States but therein is a model that works well. I have yet to hear a rational arguement against their model.

Encourage GA to contact the ATC controlling the approach by offering a useful service (RIS) otherwise why bother to call them if we're out and about in Class G in fine weather.

You try it - when you do call up they ask us to call London Information and not bother them

WWW, your arguments are much the same as the likes of Walmart use when they move in and attempt to dominate what was previously an equable status quo.

The PFA's rebuttal of the attempted airspace grab at Coventry is highly commendable and deserves every success.

There was me thinking the attitude we keep being told about is commercial wanting to get rid of GA, it would appear it is the other way around :hmm:

BEagle, the attitude that LoCos should only have operated from airports fully contained within CAS is a tad naive for an obviously intelligent person, you will be fully aware that there are only so many landing slots and places to park. Also why do those of us who live in areas not served by such Airports have to travel massive distances when we already have airports on our doorsteps.

Having seen exactly how the airspace process works I can only assure everybody just how difficult it is to obtain new CAS and the depths that are gone into to minimise inconvenience to other users. Lets be honest comparing UK airspace to US airspace is like comparing apples with oranges, they have so much more space in the first instance to play with, a very quick cursory glance at a UK chart shows just how close we all are here in the UK.

Whilst being a huge advocate of GA, and the "right to roam" outside CAS with no ATC contact Commercial aviation is a huge industry generating Billions of pounds for the UK economy. It is wrong to try to limit such an industry simply for our own pleasure. I think we probably have it close to being right as every new application process for CAS has to be looked at in minutiae with every concerned group fully involved with the right to respond to every application. However in the same way that we shouldn't just think we can have CAS everywhere we want it , those in GA also have a responsibility to accept that there are places which do require the additional protection

Hmmm.

Cake and eating it too. ;)

Take one of your cursory glances at a chart of any class B area in the States and you will see there are plenty of airports very close together indeed, they make the UK look quite inconsequential. You find small and large airplanes mixing it quite happily, each respecting the rights of the others to use a common airspace. I bet only LHR would definitely make class B if it was in the US, and yet wouldn't come close to the top 10 busiest in the States.

There was a very interesting discussion on here recently comparing the size of the LHR surface area with the size of the surface area of several busier airports in the US. What it appeared to boil down to is that at LHR, you have A340s which simply cannot climb very well and so gazillions of square miles of very usable airspace is closed off to small aircraft. Yet you put that same A340 at O'Hare and the thing is quite capable of getting smartly off the ground and out of the way of the many small aircraft safely buzzing around a few miles off the departure end of the runway. Seems like they just cannot be bothered in teh UK, and the controllers let them get away with it. In the States I suspect the Chicago controller would be on the radio telling the A340 jock exactly what was expected of him. As it should be.

I suppose it's only to be expected in the UK where ATC is simply underresourced and can hardly handle the commercial traffic, and airline pilots can get in the right seat of a jet with no idea of how GA really works.

Take Bristol and Cardiff ( ok my local area again I know) as the crow flies 23 miles, time en route in a car at least 80 minutes between the airports.

Again as for the States they often have multiple runways we get stuck with one.

I have already told you I'm pro GA I'm not fighting the CAS corner or GA corner just a tad tired f it automatically being seen as a bad thing with GA and it would seem some working the commercial side always seeing GA as a bad thing. When sides polarise so much we reach impasse, we are all airspace users lets gets real.

I've heard this many times but never heard who these airlines are. What if no RAS is available? There are plenty circumstances when the best you can get is a Limited RAS, or a RIS, due to, for example, high traffic density.

Without knowing which airport A and C is talking about it's difficult to address the specifics. There are plenty growing airports in Class G which don't offer a LARS but have a LARS provider nearby. In those cases A and C's light aircraft would be doing the correct thing in speaking to the LARS provider and not A&C's airport. If this was a regular problem then A&C's airport ought to have an LoA with the LARS provider to ensure that any aircraft working LARS which are getting close to the commercial airport are told to change frequency.

There's another side to this. I regularly instruct in Class G airspace where the occasional CAT flight passes through. The LARS provider will invariably ask me to cap my altitude, or worse, ask me to maintain a particular heading, to co-ordinate against the IFR, so he doesn't have to vector him. I always say yes even though I am under no obligation to do so and it can add several minutes to a sortie at the student's expense.

A&C, if you were in good VMC then you also had the option of still having a RAS but telling the controller you were happy to not take those particular vectors - or you could take a RIS. It sounds like the real problem was the fact that although squawking Mode C your traffic was unidentified therefore 3000ft vertical sep required if vectors not possible. What does your ops manual say about required separations from VFR traffic in Class G? I'll take a guess that it says nothing. Maybe it should.

NS

Slim slag - very well said.

We come to accept the way things are done here and take them in that context.

For example, this weekend I transited CAS twice. On both occasions I got the transit, but on both occasions I had to wait 5 to 10 minutes I guess. I also had to give the ATCO a little gentle encouragement. What was interesting is I could watch the inbounds he was working from my orbit on the edge of CAS. The inbounds were well spaced, visibility unlimited and no one else was transiting the zone. After encouragement on both occasions I routed above and behind the inbounds. In fact there was absolutely no reason for the delay in the first place. However, I was grateful because I got the transit (my comment about taking things in context). In both cases there was no obvious reason for the delay - it certainly would not have occurred in the States.

Moreover, how often do we get after requesting a zone transit - “remain outside of CAS, I will come back to you”. “Remain outside of CAS, you can expect a clearance within xx” would be far more helpful either in response or very shortly after the first call.

I appreciate these issues are slightly of thread but they typify some of the sentiments on this thread. Unfortunately the system appears to be polarised towards commercial traffic having absolute priority as opposed to there being a real effort to integrate all users within the system, and maybe whilst idealistic the bottom line is we all own the airspace and a bit like with real estate the right to roam is worth protecting.

Seems to me the problem with VFR CAS transits is the inconsistency. Last week a PPL I was flying with made an ambiguous call to ATC in an adjacent zone which we intended to route around. The controller took it as a request for a CAS transit and immediately gave us a transit clearance direct to our next turning point, at our current altitude! OK, probably no traffic to conflict, but it was a refreshing attitude. Others will be the opposite - "Flight Information Service, remain outside controlled airspace, report leaving the frequency" - yeah and cheers to you too mate.

I would imagine the best source of consistent standards on this and other ATC issues ought to be the CAA regional ATS inspectors. Over to you Mr Regulator?

NS

Do I detect a suspicion that those low hours commercial pilots are also those pilots defending CAS (and ever more of it) and those commercial pilots with some proper time under their seat take a different view as to how commercial and GA can (and do) integrate :) .

The real problem is that the new commercial breed need rather more training and need some time outside of Europe.

I reckon six months in the States would do the trick. We could seconde a few of the ATCOs at the same time.

Here's a few around LAX (within 40 miles anyway). Some make Cardiff and Bristol look like farm strips. Funnily enough, you can fly right across the LA basin without talking to a sausage if you want.....
http://www.digital-reality.co.uk/acf/images/vfrlax.jpg

Point of order: I could fly just about anywhere and not have to speak to a sausage, so this proves nothing. ;)

Nah, but it proves CAT and GA can mix freely in a very busy traffic environment, with large amounts of CAS....though sensibly thought out. (I did my CPL ME upper air work portion of the flight test over the Class C of March Airforce base at 7000')

Maybe, but how you get from the ability to fly VFR straight through the climb-outs of the main runways at LAX by getting the departing IFR traffic to say they're visual with you (as I've done) to doing the same at the nearest UK airspace equivalent - Gatwick - I just do not know. "Kittens", "having" and "CAA" spring to mind.
NS

WWW:
Not sure I follow your argument about military use of airspace. While I appreciate the large overwater areas tied up in naval ranges to consume a lot of airspace, I don't think it's really the place most light aircraft want to go flying over, so releasing this airspace is unlikely to improve GA congestion.
As I'm sure you're aware, most of the airspace in a MATZ (all but the ATZ) is not technically controlled airspace for civil aircraft. Only a buffoon wouldn't call the military controller, who will almost always give a zone transit (knowing as they do you have every right to blast through anyway). They will appreciate knowing who you are, and the opportunity to verify your Mode C. In addition, at the peak periods for GA traffic - weekends, most MATZs aren't active.
As one last point, it's also worth mentioning that most military operators are punctilious about making courtesy calls to small commercial fields they transit near, and probably have a much better lookout scan, thanks to relatively good fields of view (compared with an airliner at least), and a traning system that places a huge value on lookout, the skill that will keep those operators alive in wartime as well as peacetime.

QDM:
While a controller can indeed see your 7000C squawk, as previously mentioned the Mode C cannot be trusted unless verified. Mainly though, if you're not talking to them they have absoloutely no way of knowing if you are likely to suddenly change heading or level, so much larger separation minima must be applied than for known traffic.

Overall, I think many of us are missing the point here - the original post was trying to point out how good airmanship from the GA community can help reduce the restrictions, in the form of increased CAS, imposed on us. Surely everyone can appreciate the value in making such courtesy calls?

Sometimes when we offer a shortcut to airlines transiting between airports to beat a slot this means going outside CAS, whilst our unit will provide a RAS the accepting unit will not, this is explained to the pilot. Invariably they have to decline as their SOPs do not allow them to accept a RIS.

We do operate differently from our US brethren in so many ways, I know there are many in GA in the UK who seem to think they offer a better service, perhaps they do but we have to work to the rules the regulator sets us.

"but we have to work to the rules the regulator sets us. "

Ah yes - so what regulation prevents you giving a transit overhead Gatwick?

One notable instance occurred around a regional airport without Class D.

Flying 10 miles out in Class G airspace I was transponding and talking to the radar controller. An infamous airline arriving and positioning for landing had detected me on their TCAS and started bullying the controller to instruct me to move further out. There were implicit threats made by the pilot that he would file an airprox if I didn't.

Fortunately the particular ATCO shut him up and I carried on safely on my way.

There are definite signs that certain airlines are pressurising ATCOs to cut the corners, to lean on non-commercial traffic, and to get operators to ask for larger than necessary airspace reserved for them

We are at the start of a proposal to gain Class D for a local regional airport. Again, they are asking for a huge area of airspace to be reserved for them, and squeezing both laterally and vertically the available airspace for GA users.

This is what the airspace grabbers at Coventry are after:


Those wish to submit their comments have until 16 Jun to do so - just e-mail [email protected] , copied to [email protected] .

It's possible that the head of the directorate of airspace policy, [email protected] , might also be interested in knowing your views....

None, but if you don't ask you don't get...

Do I imagine all the light a/c transitting the London Zone and the airfields that lie inside the Zone that can operate with no reference to Heathrow ATC and used by aircraft without transponder or radio?

Would non-transponder equipped aircraft be allowed to operate in the same proximity to an airport as busy as Heathrow in the States? No, there would be a compulsory Mode C veil.

Within the limits of the class of the airspace there's a lot of light aircraft activity in the London Zone, I see it every day. The grass may be slightly greener over the pond, but not as bright a hue as many would have you think.

porco,

I guess we would need to define 'a lot'. As for Mode C, I am sure it helps keep Class B surface areas down to reasonable sizes in the States, but remember most of the traffic skirting around or flying over Class B (no Class A until FL180 remember) is unverified mode C, so would it really help in the UK?

But you bring up a good point about mandatory use of transponders being used to keep surface areas smaller. It should be possible to drastically reduce all this CAS in the UK when they force mode S down everybodies throats. That might be an acceptable quid pro quo for those in the South East. Can you see this happening?

Fine by me. We'll all need Mode S soon anyway.

Actually you can get away with no mode-c with ATC approval.

When hell freezes over, perhaps. This is the CAA and EASA we are talking about. All they intend is that they won't put in unnecessary extra restrictions. The idea of giving up CAS for GA use....!!!:rolleyes:

The "unverified" status of a Mode C transponding target doesn't affect the usefulness of the return for TCAS purposes.

Also, the verification process appears to be a mere formality most of the time anyway. It's sole purpose seems to be to pick up transponders whose altitude encoder is duff. I do wonder what the point of this verification is, because I could be legally flying under the LTMA at 2400ft, non-radio, with a transponder returning FL150, causing everybody to !!!!! themselves, but they have no means of checking because they don't know who (if anybody) he is talking to. And a lot of people fly OCAS non-radio (with a listening watch, say) with Mode C. I often do just that, but then my transponder (both KT76C and the later GTX330) permanently display the FL being returned on the LCD display. Doesn't almost every Mode C unit do that?

Robin

Hard to say what EASA will do. They are making encouraging noises about deregulating "VFR GA". What concerns many pilots is what tradeoffs will be done to placate the objecting committee members. Screwing IFR GA traffic is one possibility. I understand this may not be directly relevant to you but as I've said I don't think VFR GA is really seriously threatened in the long term; as a sport it will always carry on. There might be increasing problems getting one's certified spamcan maintained but for VFR flight there is the "PFA" type route and this looks like it will be widened; in fact the permit scene is well on the way to pushing out the CofA stuff as it is.

I'm afraid not IO, most transponders simply have an ALT selector and you have no idea what it is actually sending out. Most new digital ones will give you a FL readout, but these are in short supply compared to the older types.

A while back, and from time to time, I started asking ATC what the Alt readout shows on their screens. Came as quite a shock to see the accuracy.

Once called up a busy class B (4th busiest in world at the time, LHR around 15th) and requested an overhead transit. Approach told me my mode C was indicating FL410, I said sorry and will get it fixed and should I turn it off, approach said keep mode C on and immediately approved my transit request. No doubt I was causing TCAS mayham up in the flight levels but ATC didn't care, and neither did I :)

One can transit overhead LAX in the SFRA with Mode C and without a clearance (but monitoring a certain frequency). Off the top of my head there is the Hudson river corridor, and Class E corridors at SAN that cross short final. There should be no reason why a similar approach to controlled airspace cannot be made in these somewhat smaller airfields too. The powers that be just have to make the effort, so I guess it will never happen.

Having had Transponders outside of tolerance it is a necessary requirement if you're going to use that data from an ATC point of view.

And believe me - if the 2400ft / FL150 occurence happened you probably would find someone knocking on your door ;)
No - mode 'C' transponders that do that are actually in the minority. It's more available on more modern mode 'C' & 'S' units

Can i suggest to anyone here who thinks that they would do a better job of controlling that they actually spend time at an ATC unit. Also as to reducing the size of CAS , some of us have to work as close as we safely can to the edges of CAS just to maintain standard separation , it isn't as vast as you may make out.
They work to a different system in the US please do not even attempt to compare the procedures they can be quite different.
Whilst I am happy for aircraft to transit through the overhead I will not restrict the climb of a Jet aircraft when a simple routing east or west of the overhead will keep all people happy.

Flower

>>>Whilst I am happy for aircraft to transit through the overhead I will not restrict the climb of a Jet aircraft when a simple routing east or west of the overhead will keep all people happy<<<

I'd rally like to spend some time in the tower and radar suite just to get an appreciation of what it is like. And I don't (normally) denigrate ATCOs.

However, we have now documented examples where VFR pilots have funnelled into a seriously dangerous situations to avoid discommoding commercial departures.

A colleague was one of a number of pilots who asked for a routing through the overhead of a large field, but was 'instructed' to fly to one side of the field and pass outside the ATZ. Others asked to pass on the other side of the field. Again they were 'instructed' to pass the other way

Within minutes they were caught in sea fog close to high ground and having to descend to low level to remain VMC. In the meantime ATC were dealing with a single airliner and took no remedial action despite the cries of anguish from the VFR pilots. Still I suppose 20 VFR pilots don't compare with 300 people off on holiday

Nice one ATCOs

There may be some circumstances where, compared to the USA, the system in Europe is structured to the relative benefit of GA, rather than CAT, I can't think of any offhand.
Whilst there are obviously cases where they have come unstuck, the FAA trust in the competence of their PPL's, the CAA does not. Hence, in the US, when flying VFR, there is no clearance required to enter 'C' or 'D' airspace. Just that you must be in contact with ATC and squawk mode C in 'C'.
It seems to work there, but given some of the horror stories related in this forum it might not work here.

But that is the point. It works over there, so why not apply it here ????

I would be happy (and I believe it would be sensible) for every "commercial" airport above a certain size (exeter / plymouth / Bournemouth / Gloucester / Cardiff / Bristol / Filton etc...) being surrounded with Class C airspace, to a certain radius, say 5nm, and to a certain altitude (say 5000'). BUT I would like to see the CAS stop at 5000' and have G above it for a few thousand, which is essentially the american philosophy. I would also like to see Class C services being offered by ATC, meaning that if I need to transit (which is less likely due to the above), I call up ATC and then I am given an altitude and mode C sqwark and will accept vectors. This would ease flight planning, especially IMCr IFR, reduce CAS busts (the standard dimensions are standard), and for people not wishing to talk, they can go over the top at 5500.

Nearly all airspace in the USA is toppable, including the Class B layer cakes surrounding the busy airports - which is why they can sign write over LA - they do it at +10,000'.

A radius of 5nm is unworkable and only suits the VFR flight.
The problem isn't CAS it is the access too CAS . Come to an airfield where there is no problem with access and where the locally based GA pilots are more than happy for the airspace to be extended.

As for funnelling aircraft in to bad weather, many radar units are not even based at the airfield they work , and in the vast majority of cases are in room with limited access to windows so are unable to see any local weather, we rely on the METAR to tell us what is going on.

Whenever I give a VFR transit I always add the words, " advise if unable to maintain VMC and require to change heading or level" it is then up to the pilot to let me know if they have a problem.

Routings east/ west / north /south of the threshold work well, again at a quieter place like the one I work at you let them know the traffic they are conflicting with once visual then life becomes much easier. When you first start controlling you tend to use belts and braces in all scenarios, as you gain experience and confidence you gain a much greater awareness of what is likely to happen.
We are also not allowed to issue what are referred to as "unsafe clearances" that is why we in many cases cannot give the clearance through the overhead against a departure or arrival, once both aircraft are on the radar frequency then we can do so much more.

I have hosted many visits to my ATC unit and i know many of my colleagues do the same, it is however as easy as picking up the phone and asking if you can arrange to visit the unit , if you haven't been go along and visit if only so you can ask some of those questions that have been bugging you for some time.

No, and I accept that, but by waiting until passing traffic actually declares 'unable to maintain VMC' (and we don't do that lightly) we are already in a position of serious risk, but being placed outside the ATZ we are not the ATCOs problem.

In the particular instance my friends experienced, pilots were already declaring a problem maintaining VMC but ATC continued to instruct aircraft to fly into that area without any warning of the conditions they were about to experience

The logic is that is 'Radar' know that a lot of aircraft are intending to make a similar routing, and it is possible to allow an overhead transit (it is legal after all), then he might choose to hold the commercial traffic to allow the fleet through. However, bitter experience shows that pressure from the companies will dictate that the VFR traffic will be sent away or an MOR or complaint will be filed.

That side of the equation none of us GA pilots ever see, but we know it happens.

Robin regarding Flight priorities we do not delay flights which may or may not be on a slot for flights with a lower category unless safety will be compromised.
Have a look at MATS part 1 Section 1 chapter 4 page 5.

I'm not to sure where the problem lay with the flights you say were forced into non compliance with their licence, it is however the holder of the licences responsibility to conform to the privileges of their licence, I am not privy nor an I able to ask what qualifications the pilot may have we have to be told and as I said we may not be aware of any problems with visibility in a specific area. Once told of any difficulties I know the colleagues i work with and myself do everything we can to try to sort alternatives.