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.