Although I understand you are only trying to be helpful and explaining the constraints put on you by others, the problem you face is that plenty of people have flown in the USA and seen how they do it. Over there, planty of very busy airports are Class C which generally has a 5 mile radius surface area, and which by demonstration is totally workable. So telling us it isn't workable is only likely to make people think you are part of the problem, which may not be the case. I agree that Mode C is very prevalent and this makes life a lot easier, but then as I said before, when Mode S comes along that excuse will not stand. I think I read somewhere that a massive restructuring of European airspace is on the cards, and they appear to be copying the FAA model, did I imagine this?

Is there a formalised list which priotieies certain type of traffic over others?

If so, what is the order of the list?

I've guessing this is what Flower is refering to when she says:

Is MATS available online somewhere?

dp

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...=detail&id=222

There you go, if you go to the section i stated you will find the list of priorities, hope that helps a little towards understanding why we have to put CAT ahead of most VFR flights.

Who is more at risk - the 62 ton Boeing on departure at 250kts, 3500ft climbing OR the C172 at 90kts S&L 3,500ft maintaining a sharp lookout..?

A near miss might spill my tea but the wake will send you uncontrollable. Your arguments about restricting controlled airsace are akin to cyclists wanting to restrict cycle lanes.

There are big heavy fast trucks out there and you'd rather they not be seperated and closed off from you? If Coventry does not get its CAS then there will be a serious flight safety hazard and if the worst did happen one day then GA would be FUBAR'd by the time the next Daily Mail hit the breakfast table of middle England.

Rich playboys in their polluting pleasure craft (as GA would be portrayed) would face the full force of public ignorance and politicians craven desire to be seen to do something. That something being Mode S and compulsory flight plans for every flight like elsewhere in Europe at the very least. Not to mention the insurance companies reassessing their willingness to offer GA cover following a 180 person air disaster wiping out several housing estates...

So which if going to be more harmful to GA?

Cheers

WWW

Taking Farnborough and Luton as a couple of examples they have very active glider sites very close to their ILS approaches

As far as I am aware the gliders do not have transponders and are able to operate without any major restrictions. In the case of Luton they operate in very close proximity to the main runway approach (Dunstable downs)

Come on ATCO's when are you going to start giving GA pilots a break !

Most gliding site operate within certain rules which are laid down in memorandums of understanding between the gliding clubs and ATC

We ATCOs give GA breaks all the time and are extremely accommodating, for goodness sakes stop seeing it as a battle ground it is rather pathetic :rolleyes:

"If Coventry does not get its CAS then there will be a serious flight safety hazard...."

Best they stop flying right now then. Or move to Birmingham/East Midlands/Cardiff/Bristol.....

How ever do Exeter, Kirmington and Newquay manage?

Sorry - I'm with Beags on this. When this all blew up I had a look at Coventry's live flight data available on their website. Tuesday had 13 Commercial air transport movements between 0600 & 2000 local. That is a miniscule operation, and doesn't warrant the amount of airspace that's being asked for. In addition to which there are, with 1 hour's drive of Coventry, the following Class 'D' airports:

Birmingham
East Midlands
Luton

With Bristol just outside the hour.

Change the airspace - or move the operation. I think we all know what would be a more sensible idea. If Thomsonfly want CAS move somewhere where it already exists. Changing the airspace with the impact not just on GA, but adjoining airspace and operations makes no sense whatsoever.

You can justify anything by citing 'safety and security' and that seems to be the way our society is going at the moment. There are ever greater infringements of civil liberties, justified by 'security' considerations.

Yes, stick huge swathes of class D airspace around every poxy little airport (13 commercial flights in 16 hours?!) and the world will be a safer place.

Good, but will it be a better place? Get your heads out of your a*ses chaps.

QDM

Exeter have an application in for CAS and their operation has grown massively.

I don't know the politics of the Coventry issue, are Birmingham supporting this bid for CAS ? they to date have had all sorts of issues with Coventry so I must admit would be surprised if they were unless it has a direct benefit to Brum, Brum however is well served by CAS so IMHO would see no need for any further expansion.

Chilli are you just touting for more business up there ;)

WWW, you are trying to change your spots, aren't you? It wasn't all that long ago that you might well have been seen as a rich playboy yourself.... surely those UAS aircraft were just playthings for the privileged few, at the tax-payers expense no less! :E

Seriously though, objections from GA regarding the proposed controlled airspace stem from the fact that this is one of the more busy GA transit lanes in UK, between Birmingham and East Midlands airspace, effectively being the connection between north and south of the country. Thompson certainly knew the busy status of the airspace when they began commercial operations at Coventry.

Traditionally, aircraft using Coventry have required a much shorter final approach leg and it is only the arrival of bigger airliners which require a much longer final that has recently caused this to become a problem.

Inbound 737s do, in fact, already have in place a separation service, via Coventry's ATC Radar, albeit with some occasional inconvenience due to "unknown" traffic crossing the centreline to runway 23 at around 7 or 8 miles. Unfortunately, this also relates to MSA for that area and many GA aircraft cannot go higher, especially in winter. It is mainly this traffic that Coventry want to control, understandable to some extent.

The very large amount of Class G that Coventry now want to "grab" (it's as big as Birmingham's, but for far fewer movements) will effectively plug the gap in the existing Class G in that area, mainly to avoid Thompson aircraft having to be vectored, or, God forbid - GO AROUND! (will there ever be a case of an airliner in controlled airspace being held off or orbited for transit traffic?).

There is undoubtedly a commercial issue here and not just one of safety.

If they do get all the airspace they are asking for, they will cause at least two bottlenecks for GA, with some potential for some pilots attempting a poor weather VFR transit below the airspace, in one area below MSA, rather than face an ATC delay. Unfortunately, since the Thompson operation began, Coventry have earned rather a "reputation" for already attempting to control passing aircraft merely requesting a FIS in Class G airspace.

Presumably, no small proportion of the possible "conflicts" for their Class G inbound traffic could already have been prevented by installing a secondary radar - but this, of course would have cost Thompson money that they obviously didn't want to spend.

ShyTorque - I was making the point that the general public and the media will not portray the general aviation scene in anything other than negative light following an accident. I am a keen GA'er myself.

Beagle old chap I have to disagree. Yes at the moment COV is only home to 3 ThomsonFly 737s and the movement rate is not exactly stellar. But Go Fly at BRS started with 3 737s not even 5 years ago and now is up to 9 aircraft.

You need CAS ahead of Operations else safety is compromised for all. Fine, if COV needs a 20 mile radius zone then lets delete the zones around a couple of disused military airfields and balance it all out. Or close a few ranges. Ohh, silly me that has all happened in recent years anyway. In fact I might be tempted to wager that the amount of Controlled AirSpace in the UK is less now that 15 years ago.

Someone want to take that bet?

Cheers

WWW

slim,

You'll find the traffic statistics for the busiest airports in terms of movements here.

You'll see Heathrow comes well down the list which doesn't bother me, means I don't have to work as hard as those at the airports higher up the list, but it may add amunition for those that like to use these sorts of figures to spice up their arguments. The figures at Heathrow aren't going to increase much over the next few years either unless a third runway is built, it's pretty much at capacity as is.

The simple facts are that the two systems, UK and FAA, are different. Some aspects of one are better than the other but there are pros and cons on both sides. Simply saying that everything in FAA land is better is an over simplification and for me it doesn't wash. I base that on the experience of having flown IFR and VFR over there and also having visited a number of their busiest ATC units.

If there's any reason why we don't have quite such a joined up ATC service as there is in the States then point the fingers at our political lords and masters. The day NATS was privatised and essentially sold into the control of the airlines and main airport operator did anyone ever really think that the lower end of the GA spectrum would be very high up the list of priorities?

The airlines, our owners (the government may hold the golden share but their seat is right at the back), demand that we provide the best possible service to them at the lowest cost, that doesn't leave much in the way of manpower or funds to look after the non revenue customers, unpalatable as that is to myself and many of my colleagues.

Flower,

Thanks for the link.

Looking at the list of priorities, I'm a little confused.

Categories A-E seem to be for Emergency, S&R, Politically important people, and CAA flights.

Then we have normal flights, which include "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures", and also Instrument flight tests.

Lastly is category Z which includes training and all other flights.

I see nothing in the list which prioritises Scheduled, Chartered, Commercial, Fast, Large, Heavy or IFR traffic.

Presumably it is the "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures" but that includes CAT. Is this to say that a light aircraft, which files a VFR flight plan, and complies with normal routing procedures gets the same priority as the commercials? This isn't what happens in practise, at least in my experience.

That section does make a comment (which I don't understand) that the table is not for flow control. Perhaps this is not the section you had intended to reference to?

dp

WWW:

Please don't degenerate this into some kind of cockfight about who's got the bigger/higher performing aircraft, that's really not the issue here, and plenty of people here could easily push you right back into the little box you've emerged from. And, for that matter, you can stop showing how much of a brilliant bus driver you are by knowing the trendy three letter identifiers for your stops too.

Rant Off.

That is true, but they are not putting out their proposals for general discussion.

Worse their 'stepped airspace' is based on an aircraft with a poor rate of climb, which will probably not be in operation at the time the new airspace is instituted.

This means that in places there is a very narrow margin between the base of the CAS and the ground.

Again, this shows that GA is being sidelined in favour of commercial operators and the margins of safety for GA are reduced so that the relatively small numbers of commercial flights have a greater margin.

"You need CAS ahead of Operations else safety is compromised for all."

So how did ThomsonFly set up their operation in the first place then? Or are you saying that they operate in a hazardous manner?

Sorry, but a few little 737s whose sole raison d'etre is to haul shell-suited oiks to alcohol-fuelled oblivion in various sunny watering holes is insufficient reason for hundreds of GA pilots to be very seriously restricted.

Chav-Air rules, I'm afraid

Porco,

I'm not actually saying one side is better (though one most clearly is), it's just that when this comes around we always hear the "it's just too busy, just too congested". One way to counter that argument is to analyse all sorts of numbers and come up with a superb presentation as to why that is nonsense. As I cannot be bothered to do that (and wouldn't know how to even if I could) I just say "It's busier and more congested over there, and they quite easily manage to do what you say you cannot". In my mind it has the same effect.

So coventry has less than 20 jet movements a day. Wow. better not tell Porco how that would be handled in the US, let's say it's a good chance there wouldn't even be a tower. I've flown at airports with part 121 ops and no controller. They have ILS's though, very good for keeping in practice when no controllers slowing things up :) Just make sure you get out of the way when the 757 announces on the common frequency he is turning base to final.

So porco, you didn't answer my question. If everything within 30 miles of LHR is squawking mode S, will you need such a large surface area??

There might be no controller in a tower but the approach itself is still controlled by ATC. If you're IFR that may well lead to delays in or out if there's more than one aircraft in the system... I assume you're also talking to ATC if you're flying practice instrument approaches under VFR?

Probably didn't answer because I've got no idea. I'll hand that one over to any airspace planners or DAP reps that might be here. I am just a humble and much maligned UK atco :)

There are airspace classification changes afoot though, so who knows what the future may hold.

Porco,

The controller (probably centre) will provide separation services between IFR traffic. No tower, Class E, so he has no idea whether there is VFR traffic in the pattern. Controller will clear the jet for the approach, tell him to get on the CTAF, the jet will self announce on the common frequency and if VMC see and avoid. If there are two IFR arrivals and it's VMC then sure, the second IFR arrival will have to wait until the first one cancels, but in the interim any number of VFR traffic can land. Very nice indeed.

Why would I talk to a controller if shooting practice approaches in VMC at an untowered field? It's class E, no requirement to talk to anybody, or even have a radio. All I need is a safety pilot to keep the flight safe and legal, and see and avoid.

Surprised you don't have an opinion on the mode S, as earlier you said the US can do things because of Mode C veils. One would expect the same principles to apply in the UK, but that's probably the mistake I am making all along.

And I like controllers :)

Beags, the lack of controlled airspace around COV is an issue and its going to be addressed. Funny enough you'll not find many oiks on ThompsonFlys Coventry to, say, Venice - or Jeresy - flights. Mostly the passengers will be decerning retired A,B,1,2's such as your good self. Anyway - the class of passenger or reason for travel are immaterial.

The fact is that ten years ago there was no Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 or Globespan. These operators of piddly little 737s now have between them over 150 jets based in the UK. That's half the BA fleet! It is therefore not logical to believe no new controlled airspace is required to meet this significant increase in commercial aviation.

New realities, new airspace.

Cheers

WWW

Wow - 150 jets!!

So how many gliders, microlights and other light aircraft are there in the Coventry area who will have a large area of airspace blocked?

We had this problem years ago when the F111s were operating from Upper Heyford. A massive area reserved for a miniscule number of movements. At the time we joked about the fact that these aircraft were destined to blast through the Russian anti-aircraft defences, but they had to keep our Swallows and Ka8s out of their way.

Sorry, WWW, but you have yet to raise a single cogent reason to justify Coventry's attempted airspace grab. There is sufficient capacity at other airports to support the very few 737s which currently fly from Coventry.

Incidentally, I never fly on locos. All my flights these days are with LH from Birmingham in business class - most certainly not with baConair Well, I did use to fly on the excellent Buzz some years ago before it folded, but I'll never fly with the scratchcard mob.

If the Locos get cheap landing fees and pay cheap salaries to the air crew surely they can afford the extra gallon or two for the occasional bit of GA avoidance or an extra hold :confused:

FAR AIM 4-3-21 Practice Instrument Approaches is the reference I'm browsing through.

I've not checked back but I don't think I said the US can do things because they have Mode C veils, I think the point I was trying to make back then was that we are currently less restrictive here by not insisting on mandatory Mode C carraige near our busiest airports.

I'm a PPL as well as an atco. I think altitude reporting transponders are a good thing near busy CAS, the safety benefits are undeniable. Whether they need to be A/C or S possibly boils down to how many of them are going to be up and about at the same time. I believe there are technical reasons that make Mode S better if there are going to be a lot of transponders up and on at the same time. So if the regulator wants to mandate transponder carraige it's probably not surprising they've chosen S over A/C.

Top bloke ;)

I think altitude reporting transponders are a good thing near busy CAS, the safety benefits are undeniable. Whether they need to be A/C or S possibly boils down to how many of them are going to be up and about at the same time. I believe there are technical reasons that make Mode S better if there are going to be a lot of transponders up and on at the same time. So if the regulator wants to mandate transponder carraige it's probably not surprising they've chosen S over A/C.

I think the above is exactly right.

I think a big mistake over here was to not make Mode C mandatory near busy places years ago, US-style. That would have defused a lot of the current issue and may have avoided Mode S altogether.

However, Mode S is a pan-European thing so perhaps debating the UK scene is a bit pointless. It all comes down to how many axes were being ground under what table in what Brussels committee.

Porco, I guess you are referring to 4.3.21 (c). All I can say is that the AIM is advisory, and the advice given in that paragraph is routinely ignored. The FARs. which are regulatory, require no contact with ATC when manouvering in class E. No doubt if there was an accident and one had ignored the advice given in the AIM, then one might have difficulties :)

All I was asking for was for GA pilots to talk to the approach controler if flying near to the approach path of regonal airports and pointing out that this would avoid disruption to the CAT sector and reduce the pressure for more CAS.

In the case I quoted if the "unknown traffic" had talked to the ATC unit and had his mode C readout checked there would have been no conflict (his altitude might have been capped for a few miles) but I don't think that this would have been too much trouble to him, if the aircraft had not had a transponder I would have assumed that on such a nice afternoon it was a non-radio aircraft and I would have not started this thread.

I don't want to see an airspace grab by the bean counters and the post was inteded to highlight the fact that if GA won't cooperate with CAT then this will just give the bean counters more ammunition to fight for more CAS.

The understanding of the way that GA pilots opperate is deminishing in CAT as most of the new airline pilots HAVE NEVER held a PPL and have only flown small aircraft under strict supervision of the training schools and so have a very blinkerd veiw of light aviation.

So the attitude of MOST of the newer airline pilots is that they want to be kept away from light aircraft simply because the don't understand GA or the way it opperates.

The situation will only get worse as the requirments to get an (F)ATPL go from 250 hours flying time to something around 80 hours with the rest being done on a simulator.

"In the case I quoted if the "unknown traffic" had talked to the ATC unit and had his mode C readout checked there would have been no conflict (his altitude might have been capped for a few miles)"

I agree, A&C. However, one thing that must be borne in mind: In your example, had the pilot chosen to speak to ATC, he was in Class G so ATC could only have REQUESTED that he cap his altitude. The problem comes from controllers thinking they are entitled to control aircraft operating in Class G. They can't. Once a pilot has been inconvenienced a few times (not that capping an altitude normally is, unless the pilot is wanting to climb to MSA due to decreasing weather conditions) he begins to think that the next time he won't bother contacting ATC.

If a controller or CAT pilot is unhappy in those circumstances, the CAT must be vectored or held high. This is a commercial consideration and not normally a safety issue.

However, GA is generally the easy option - the pilots don't have much clout for comeback if they are routinely inconvenienced or put to greater expense by delays caused to them to please shareholders of an airline. An airline has the ability to increase prices. A GA operator / private operator often has not.

There was an interesting post recently from a PPL who took his first trip to a reasonably busy UK airport. He planned it carefully, phoned up for an arrival time, agreed to pay the various charges asked of him, and was given a 'slot'. The GA pilot appeared to arrive in good time, was told to hold by ATC, then vectored to final approach and cleared to land. At less than 2 mile final he was sent around because a commercial jet who was number two to land was coming up behind.

This pilot though ATC were great, so I sort of questioned him, but he still thought ATC were great so I thought he had a good time so why introduce doubts. Me, I'd have been cursing them as I followed all their instruction to the letter, had agreed to pay the money requested by them for their professional services, and yet at a very late stage had been assigned a lower priority than a commercial jet behind me (and which didn't have right of way in the technical sense). Instead of being gushing with praise for ATC, I'd have wanted to send them an invoice for the extra cost I was paying on the Hobbs.

Being the owner of four light aircraft and flying for an airline I do see this issue from both sides and have no problem with accomodating light aircraft traffic, but in this case a quick word with ATC would have saved the airlines some money and had very little if any effect on the flight of the light aircraft.

In short the a quick word from this guy could have saved the needless extra flying time by two airliners, inccidents like this only encourage the bean counters to ask for more CAS if there is a good and valid reason for airliners giving way to GA then I have no problem with this.

This thread was started becaue I don't want any more CAS and to encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC, this will undermine the requests from the beancounters for more CAS, the bottom line is we must use class G airspace wisely or it will be taken from us.

Here's what the MATS Pt 1 says on the subject, the interesting bit about "control" is towards the end...

Approach Control Service Outside Controlled Airspace

1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA, from the time and place at which:

a) arriving aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until control is transferred to aerodrome control;

b) departing aircraft are taken over from aerodrome control until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner;

c) overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise.

Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.

It is ultimately down to education. In the days when we had a bit more flexibility over MORS a chat over the phone usually sorted out any issues and most VFR PPLs were horrified to think that they may have in anyway caused any problems.
The time the average student gets in the classroom to fully understand the implications of flying close to an IAP outside CAS without speaking to ATC or keeping a reasonable distance is extremely limited. I have advocated before a ground school for the PPL where ATC also get involved, with no subject taboo. Ultimately of course though money dictates everything these days.
Prior to my enforced absence from work i ran regular trips around my ATC unit and trips to D&D, when I am back in harness I will do them again. Once most have seen a busy Radar display they don't forget it and hopefully also this barrier which some create in their mind between ATC and Private flyers disappears.

I would put that in the "ATC stuffed up" category by possibly misjudging the gap required behind the PPL and they took the easiest and safest option to sort it out.

We're human and we stuff up now and again, pilots are human and they stuff up now and again. Do we bill the PPLs for the extra fuel used by 747s and the like when we're vectoring them around CAS infringers as I was doing (not for the first time) a couple of days ago?

Rather I'd hope that the "guilty" party, on whichever side, learns from the experience and doesn't repeat it.

According to the latest General Aviation magazine, AOPA UK are asking anyone who is refused access to class D to let them know by email at [email protected]

Based on this thread, that email address must be full to bursting by now ;)

"This thread was started becaue I don't want any more CAS and to encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC"

Without wishing to be pedantic (because you may well not have meant it in precisely the way stated) this and slims post hits the nail on the head.

You say "encourage GA pilots to co-operate". We should be saying encourage GA and ATCOs to co-operate with each other.

How many times have you received when requesting a zone transit "remain outside of controlled airspace, I will come back to you". How many times have you had to remind them to "come back" and how long has it taken. As I posted before, it is a quick an as easy to say "you can expect a transit within 5 minutes".

As Slim said GA is increasingly treated as a second class citizen. It is not too surprising when GA decides if reasonable courtesy cannot be extened to their request why should they bother. They will remain outside the zone and route around as close as they can. Moreover having been left in limbo so many times is GA is also not surprisingly going to be less receptive to either the commercial guys or ATCO then being very quick to want them to alter their track. Maybe having maintained a radio watch the response should be "I will remain outside controlled airspace, I will come back to you when I am good and ready"

"1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise.

Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly."

Porco Rosso, two points on that quote. The pilot in Class G is under no legal obligation to make RTF contact with an adjacent ATC agency (this is what the original point was all about). If he does opt to make contact, it is up to him to request a service and he retains the option to refuse a service or instruction. No pilot with an ounce of common sense would refuse an ATC instruction if safety were the issue. Unfortunately, it appears that GA is increasingly disadvantaged by delays / holding / re-routing for purely commercial considerations of airlines.

ATC unit cannot impose a service outside controlled airspace and should not expect to do so. It is up to the pilot to request a service and for he and ATC to come to an agreement about the type of service provided.

Rustle,

Not every pilot gets a copy of that publication - we don't.

I quite agree Porco, we all make mistakes, and nothing wrong with that per se. I guess the point I was making was the controllers stuffed up, and they punished the GA pilot and not the commercial operation. What should have happened is the jet should have been sent around, the jet jockey would throw his toys out the the pram, and the controllers advised of a mistake in a no blame manner. So next time a light aircraft turns up having agreed to pay the charges for a professional service, the controllers get it a bit better. If they get away with it, there is no incentive to change. But I still like controllers :)

Regarding the airline coming after the PPL who busts airspace so costs them money, I suppose when I think about it simplistically and I hate to say it but it's not actually too unreasonable. But then I consider that the small planes were here before the large planes, and the airlines have annexed large amounts of airspace, more than they appear to require IMHO, so I consider it's just a cost to them of doing business in my airspace. Also, they don't compensate me adequately when they mess me around as a passenger - So they can take a hike.

"encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC"

From my experience mainly in the south, the quality of FIS you tend to get from ATC's who have controlled traffic in Class G is so good that I want to use them. My main example is Bristol who I use regularly and it is usually such a pleasure and so useful, that I would not consider not talking to them.