Clyde Tmz
 

SSE - Clyde


A TMZ down to 3,500' over the A74(M) north of Moffat, any comments?
bb

Yeah. Wht not put a large circle around the terminal airspace instead of a small patch here, a small patch there and a small patch here?

Like this

It makes the charts much simpler to read, encourages everyone to leave their transponder on mode-C, and saves people getting busted for errors with navigating around tight spaces in-between multiple TMZs.

Non-transponder equipped aircraft should be able to use these spaces subject to ATC approval.

Interesting AOPA are not on the list of consultees. Why would you consult British Airways? In the USA the first group on the list would be AOPA.

Personally I don't mind, I think TMZs are a good idea and I think there should be one around every main airport that doesn't have CAS.

Might be an idea to read the consultation docs then. This is a temporary TMZ below the Scottish TMA, supposedly to guard against non-transponding traffic infringing the TMA from below, over a planned wind farm, before a new radar is brought in to deal with the effects of the wind farm. Frankly I think this TMZ is a complete waste of time since none of the traffic in this airspace is getting a radar service, all of them are asked to squawk already, and in any case the TMA radar controllers just ignore primary-only radar contacts because they're deemed to be below controlled airspace (Scottish TMA is already transponder-mandatory above 6000ft and of course all IFR traffic is squawking).
NS

So the Luton TMZ was the thin end of the wedge!

Now we have one of the largest most empty pieces of CAS (see the LAA response to the last change) demanding a TMZ is an area where presently there is no transponder requirement - or much prospect of an ATC service.

There does seem to be an unpublished policy to insist on a TMZ under virtually any circumstance where radar 'might' be impaired.

Well, I'm not sure the Luton (actually Stansted) TMZ is relevant because it's permanent. This isn't.

I agree with the first bit but, with the greatest respect to fisbangwollop and his colleagues, there is actually NO prospect of an ATC service because if you try to call one of the Scottish Control frequencies below the TMA, and aren't intending to climb into the TMA, you will be told to call Sc Info who of course are not radar-equipped. Sc Info will then tell you to squawk.

What I don't get is why the current situation, before this wind farm is built, where a non-transponding light aircraft can climb into the TMA in this area and controllers will continue to assume it's remaining below CAS, is deemed acceptable, but a future situation, when the wind farm is built, and non-transponding aircraft still climb into the TMA, is considered unacceptable.

NS

Perhaps a simpler solution would be to move the silly bloody windfarm away from areas where it might/will affect Radar. :rolleyes:

Or just stop throwing huge sums at a technology that seems to produce a very small percentage of power considering the land investment involved.

I expect they will get lots of returns from the wind farm and would like to distinguish between real aeroplanes and clutter from the turbines.

I don't mind, my own personal view is that every aeroplane should have a transponder.

A Nuclear power station would show up as a smaller paint on a PPI or could be easily built elsewhere where it won't interfere, also would provide much more power over a wider area. Much better idea, nay? :suspect:

Smithy

What's a PPI? Why should it be painted?

A PPI is something that controllers stare at all day, and yet another thing we spods must fix from time to time. :suspect:

A "paint" is a target. Movies, dafties etc. tend to use the horrendously naff term "blip" in substitution (up there with cheesy innaccurate crap like "over and out", "roger wilco" etc.) :ugh:

Smithy

Can anyone explain to me why an aeroplane at 3,499' is not a problem to the radar cover but 3,501' would be? i.e. why a cut off at 3,500'
bb

Most likely terrain. Any Primary returns will either be blanked by the Processor (to counter interference from terrain, windfarms etc.) or will be undetected altogether due to the terrain. Perhaps NS or an ATCE/ATCO from the area in question could confirm?

Smithy

They are; the list is not in alphabetic order!

Because NATS wants to have radar cover extending to 2000ft below the base of controlled airspace, to be able to detect potential vertical infringers and/or provide traffic info for anyone descending out of CAS. Base of CAS here is 5500ft.
NS

Does the Primary coverage extend below 3500' in that region? I can't remember what the nearest ENR Radar site is down that way. Lowther hill perhaps?

Lowther coverage is pretty much down to ground level in that area
NS

I see. I didn't realise that.

S

Thanks NorthSouth. Good to know, now if the base of Controlled Airspace was raised to FL75 that would give a 2,000' buffer below and effectively retain the old base....

If the base went up 2,000' would there no longer be a need for the TTMZ?
bb