Budget flights 'pose collision risk'
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fastmover321 - I agree with much of what you say, particularly to suggest that flights outside controlled airspace is unsafe is extremelyalarmist and incorrect.
Mark Avery - We must accept what you say about balanced reporting but it is somewhat apparent that you dont have all the facts. For example, are you aware that Commercial Air Transport flights account for a very small minority of aircraft movements in the UK? Would it be right therefore to put massive costs and controls in place for a minority of the industry. Well yes in many cases it is right and proper to do just that and we leave this to the CAA; and they have the experience, the rules and regulations to administer it all quite properly. The guys and galls in ATC do a fantastic job in the UK but not quite all their bretheren are so good and what is said by some must be regarded with caution.
Mark Avery - We must accept what you say about balanced reporting but it is somewhat apparent that you dont have all the facts. For example, are you aware that Commercial Air Transport flights account for a very small minority of aircraft movements in the UK? Would it be right therefore to put massive costs and controls in place for a minority of the industry. Well yes in many cases it is right and proper to do just that and we leave this to the CAA; and they have the experience, the rules and regulations to administer it all quite properly. The guys and galls in ATC do a fantastic job in the UK but not quite all their bretheren are so good and what is said by some must be regarded with caution.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Losses of Seperation
Hey all,
Just been reading through and there are a couple of points that jump out at me.
1 - Blade16 - Do you truly believe that NATS are trying to encourage more controlled airspace into the country to enforce their market position? - I find this quite remarkable - I would assume that you are fully aware that all airspace in and around airports, whether it be Approach control, or Approach radar Control, goes out to individual Tender? As an example,
is radar controlled by controllers supplied by Bristol Airport Authority. Whilst NATS would be ultimately responsible for the airways joining clearance, until that traffic reaches the join condition, it receives a radar service from a Non Nats Unit.
2 - Radar Services outside Controlled Airspace
You all know the services available outside of controlled airspace. As a controller, I will ensure that I do my upmost to give the best service that I can, at low level in uncontrolled airspace a Radar Advisory Service is not very much fun for a controller, However, standard seperation applies, ( 3 miles generally for an approach radar unit - Not 5 no matter what TCAS 'ta' says!!! ), therefore offering you guys the most protection affordable o/s CAS. However, if you are approaching an airfield situated in class G airspace, it is feasible that you could be mixing it with GA traffic not speaking to the Approach unit, I would not be ABLE to provide a RAS, because i would not be able to seperate you from the traffic, In fact, a RIS would be tricky as well, would you, as a commercial Pilot, with 150 people in the passenger seat be happy with " Limited RIS due traffic intensity " ? - I wouldn't be happy as a passenger knowing that was the case.
I can understand that people may be upset if more and more Class D airspace starts popping up all over the shop, but at the end of the day, Safety MUST be paramount.
Interesting reading so far - Will be very interested to see where this one goes.
Regards
TIO
Just been reading through and there are a couple of points that jump out at me.
1 - Blade16 - Do you truly believe that NATS are trying to encourage more controlled airspace into the country to enforce their market position? - I find this quite remarkable - I would assume that you are fully aware that all airspace in and around airports, whether it be Approach control, or Approach radar Control, goes out to individual Tender? As an example,
Bristol International with over 50,000 Air Transport Movements a year
2 - Radar Services outside Controlled Airspace
You all know the services available outside of controlled airspace. As a controller, I will ensure that I do my upmost to give the best service that I can, at low level in uncontrolled airspace a Radar Advisory Service is not very much fun for a controller, However, standard seperation applies, ( 3 miles generally for an approach radar unit - Not 5 no matter what TCAS 'ta' says!!! ), therefore offering you guys the most protection affordable o/s CAS. However, if you are approaching an airfield situated in class G airspace, it is feasible that you could be mixing it with GA traffic not speaking to the Approach unit, I would not be ABLE to provide a RAS, because i would not be able to seperate you from the traffic, In fact, a RIS would be tricky as well, would you, as a commercial Pilot, with 150 people in the passenger seat be happy with " Limited RIS due traffic intensity " ? - I wouldn't be happy as a passenger knowing that was the case.
I can understand that people may be upset if more and more Class D airspace starts popping up all over the shop, but at the end of the day, Safety MUST be paramount.
Interesting reading so far - Will be very interested to see where this one goes.
Regards
TIO
Just a numbered other
Interesting post Turn it Off..
So what service DOES a 737 get after dropping out of the CTA, whilst being vectored to the ILS at CVT?
In fact, a RIS would be tricky as well, would you, as a commercial Pilot, with 150 people in the passenger seat be happy with " Limited RIS due traffic intensity " ? - I wouldn't be happy as a passenger knowing that was the case.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wherever there are two aircraft flying in the same rough geographical area, there is a collision hazard.
In CAS, this is mitigated by means of legislation which requires aircraft to use transponders, to communicate with ATC and obey intructions, and by the sectorisation of airspace and the presence of suitably qualified ATCOs and their equipment.
Outside CAS, there is no requirement to use transponders, to communicate, nor to obey instructions, nor is there any requirement for ATC to provide a service. Indeed the Manual of Air Traffic Services specifies at some length the circumstances in which controllers should limit or restrict provision of a service.
Historically, operations outside CAS have relied upon the 'see and avoid' principle. This is impossible to exercise in transport aircraft, on account of their speed, and in IMC. RAS, RIS, and APC services offered outside CAS are 'sticking plasters'.
Following a mid-air collision, a (surviving) commander of an aircraft operating outside CAS, and, ultimately, the Operator, would have enormous difficulty in attempting to prove that they were taking effective steps to prevent such a collision.
It would be easy to prove that the operator was derelict in his duty of care. That is what this is all about. Passengers are being subjected to a known hazard, with a catastrophic outcome albeit at a statistically low level of risk, which the operators have chosen not to act against.
In my mind, it's not good enough, and scheduled public transport in jet aircraft should be restricted to CAS.
In CAS, this is mitigated by means of legislation which requires aircraft to use transponders, to communicate with ATC and obey intructions, and by the sectorisation of airspace and the presence of suitably qualified ATCOs and their equipment.
Outside CAS, there is no requirement to use transponders, to communicate, nor to obey instructions, nor is there any requirement for ATC to provide a service. Indeed the Manual of Air Traffic Services specifies at some length the circumstances in which controllers should limit or restrict provision of a service.
Historically, operations outside CAS have relied upon the 'see and avoid' principle. This is impossible to exercise in transport aircraft, on account of their speed, and in IMC. RAS, RIS, and APC services offered outside CAS are 'sticking plasters'.
Following a mid-air collision, a (surviving) commander of an aircraft operating outside CAS, and, ultimately, the Operator, would have enormous difficulty in attempting to prove that they were taking effective steps to prevent such a collision.
It would be easy to prove that the operator was derelict in his duty of care. That is what this is all about. Passengers are being subjected to a known hazard, with a catastrophic outcome albeit at a statistically low level of risk, which the operators have chosen not to act against.
In my mind, it's not good enough, and scheduled public transport in jet aircraft should be restricted to CAS.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal,
I am not familiar with the operating procedures at CVT, so unfortunately I can only comment on what the book definition says. Whether CVT have their own operating procedures which are endorsed by the CAA I cannot comment on (Maybe someone from CVT might chip in here?).
However, the 737 dropping outside of controlled airspace, will get whichever service the controller deems is most suitable, and a pilot should always be advised when
1 - Their routing will lead them outside of controlled Airspace
2 - What service they are receiving outside of controlled airspace ( Which I believe is also a mandatory readback?? ).
I'm sure as a pilot it will be more reassuring to you if you hear " Radar Advisory Service " The ATC unit is taking responsibility for applying standard seperation. The big difference between a RAS and a RIS is that under a RIS;
AIP ENR1.6.1.3.2.1
I just hope all the pilots flying outside controlled airspace are fully aware of this.
I agree with this. Is this also why in the AIP somewhere ( can't remember where and i'm not going looking! ) that it is suggested that VFR flight in aircraft above 5700kg should not fly VFR, however, it is not prohibited?
TIO
I am not familiar with the operating procedures at CVT, so unfortunately I can only comment on what the book definition says. Whether CVT have their own operating procedures which are endorsed by the CAA I cannot comment on (Maybe someone from CVT might chip in here?).
However, the 737 dropping outside of controlled airspace, will get whichever service the controller deems is most suitable, and a pilot should always be advised when
1 - Their routing will lead them outside of controlled Airspace
2 - What service they are receiving outside of controlled airspace ( Which I believe is also a mandatory readback?? ).
I'm sure as a pilot it will be more reassuring to you if you hear " Radar Advisory Service " The ATC unit is taking responsibility for applying standard seperation. The big difference between a RAS and a RIS is that under a RIS;
The pilot is wholly responsible for maintaining separation from other aircraft whether or not the controller has passed traffic information
I just hope all the pilots flying outside controlled airspace are fully aware of this.
In my mind, it's not good enough, and scheduled public transport in jet aircraft should be restricted to CAS.
TIO
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: nr Birmingham
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the 737 dropping outside of controlled airspace, will get whichever service the controller deems is most suitable, and a pilot should always be advised when
1 - Their routing will lead them outside of controlled Airspace
1 - Their routing will lead them outside of controlled Airspace
WNC
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wherever there are two aircraft flying in the same rough geographical area, there is a collision hazard. In CAS, this is mitigated by means of legislation which requires aircraft to use transponders, to communicate with ATC and obey intructions, and by the sectorisation of airspace and the presence of suitably qualified ATCOs and their equipment.
Because ATC, even although providing you a service in CAS and giving you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, can't guarantee to keep you apart from something they might not see and certainly know nothing about.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar,
Of course, you are quite correct. You and I, both holders of yellow licences, know this.
However, I tried to keep my post short and sweet, whilst reflecting the vast majority of operations in the UK. I don't want to bore people with lots of conditional statements and amplification of minor points.
To expand upon your remarks, those who regard TCAS as a means of preventing colisions, should bear your comment in mind!
I might add that ATC are not duty bound to 'guarantee' anything, other than a FIS and Alerting Service. Certainly, regardless of whether in CAS or not, there is no 'guarantee' of separation, only an endeavour to achieve it, made easier by the legislation regarding communication and obedience.
For my part, I am much more worried about pilots operating outside CAS without taking any measures whatsoever to address the possibility of encountering traffic My own habit was always to switch on landing lights (all of them), ensure the TCAS was operational, and brief that we would both look out constantly. I also used to brief patterns of likely traffic (eg, where the fighter ranges are, where the likely recovery routes are, etc). Many colleagues did none of these things.
Another concern is the period of handover under RAS and RIS - a fertile ground for conflictions to develop without anyone being able to act...
Of course, you are quite correct. You and I, both holders of yellow licences, know this.
However, I tried to keep my post short and sweet, whilst reflecting the vast majority of operations in the UK. I don't want to bore people with lots of conditional statements and amplification of minor points.
To expand upon your remarks, those who regard TCAS as a means of preventing colisions, should bear your comment in mind!
I might add that ATC are not duty bound to 'guarantee' anything, other than a FIS and Alerting Service. Certainly, regardless of whether in CAS or not, there is no 'guarantee' of separation, only an endeavour to achieve it, made easier by the legislation regarding communication and obedience.
For my part, I am much more worried about pilots operating outside CAS without taking any measures whatsoever to address the possibility of encountering traffic My own habit was always to switch on landing lights (all of them), ensure the TCAS was operational, and brief that we would both look out constantly. I also used to brief patterns of likely traffic (eg, where the fighter ranges are, where the likely recovery routes are, etc). Many colleagues did none of these things.
Another concern is the period of handover under RAS and RIS - a fertile ground for conflictions to develop without anyone being able to act...
Pegase Driver
16 B : remarks :
1- in uncontrolled airspace VFR you do not need a transponder, so TCAS cannot be a backup as you stated.
2- In Germany you have TMZ ( Xponder mandatory zones ) around secondary (AFIS) airfields
B737s do not mix well with C152s and gliders. GATCO has a valid point imho.
1- in uncontrolled airspace VFR you do not need a transponder, so TCAS cannot be a backup as you stated.
2- In Germany you have TMZ ( Xponder mandatory zones ) around secondary (AFIS) airfields
B737s do not mix well with C152s and gliders. GATCO has a valid point imho.
Just a numbered other
Astronomy:
Indeed. I don't fly in to CVT these days, but when I was based there handover was much as we_never_change states. However (and maybe it was because we were expected to know) we were rarely told that we were leaving CAS.
So, just as things are about to get interesting, we have a freq change ,and re-establishment of coms.
And if it's a glider he's hit even more problems with having not given way to it
Another concern is the period of handover under RAS and RIS - a fertile ground for conflictions to develop without anyone being able to act...
So, just as things are about to get interesting, we have a freq change ,and re-establishment of coms.
Following a mid-air collision, a (surviving) commander of an aircraft operating outside CAS, and, ultimately, the Operator, would have enormous difficulty in attempting to prove that they were taking effective steps to prevent such a collision.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD
The fact that glider and microlights (not many of which have transponders and/or radios) paint very badly on the radar I use, which IS new and is the same system used at CVT (although we do have secondary); and they are almost indistinguishable from the clutter.
I am not saying that CAT shouldn't use the FIR where appropriate (or unavoidable) but where an established airways system exists I do not think it is prudent to enter the FIR just to "cut the corner" as sometimes happens here. I have occassions where the level of service to my inbound aircraft in CAS has started to suffer because one operator decided to route through the FIR on a sunny Saturday and even a RIS is 'kin hard work-thankfully we usually have a radar2 available who can take some of the workolad-but I don't think it is fair on those doing the "right" thing and using the protection that CAS provides (and accepting its downfalls, ATFM,indirect routes etc etc)
The fact that glider and microlights (not many of which have transponders and/or radios) paint very badly on the radar I use, which IS new and is the same system used at CVT (although we do have secondary); and they are almost indistinguishable from the clutter.
I am not saying that CAT shouldn't use the FIR where appropriate (or unavoidable) but where an established airways system exists I do not think it is prudent to enter the FIR just to "cut the corner" as sometimes happens here. I have occassions where the level of service to my inbound aircraft in CAS has started to suffer because one operator decided to route through the FIR on a sunny Saturday and even a RIS is 'kin hard work-thankfully we usually have a radar2 available who can take some of the workolad-but I don't think it is fair on those doing the "right" thing and using the protection that CAS provides (and accepting its downfalls, ATFM,indirect routes etc etc)
Does this mean all those times I was buzzing in and out of Finningley in a Dominie my life was hanging by a thread.
(Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood International has had aircraft there before)
(Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood International has had aircraft there before)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<The fact that glider and microlights (not many of which have transponders and/or radios) paint very badly on the radar I use, which IS new and is the same system used at CVT (although we do have secondary); and they are almost indistinguishable from the clutter. >>
OK Evil J. I don't know where you work but on all the UK ATC radars I have used gliders definitely painted - just look at the Wycombe area during their special gliding events. I have also seen microlights on radar which have strayed into the London Zone..
OK Evil J. I don't know where you work but on all the UK ATC radars I have used gliders definitely painted - just look at the Wycombe area during their special gliding events. I have also seen microlights on radar which have strayed into the London Zone..
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Astronomy Dominie:
So how do the military fast jet boys do it then, regularly flying at speeds twice as fast as CAT a/c below FL100?
If the main threat to jet airliners outside CAS is GA aircraft then the speed differential means that all the threats should be in the airliner's 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock sector, making it much easier to search visually.
Probably the bigger threat to CAT operations outside CAS is with the likes of Saab 340s operating in areas where there is a lot of military fast jet activity. Then the threats can appear from way beyond the airliner flight deck field of view.
The other point not yet made in this thread is, at radar-equipped airports outside CAS, at what point in the approach does the controller stop giving a RAS? Is a RAS still possible with the aircraft flying at minimum vectoring altitude? And what then happens when the aircraft descends below that? What does the controller say to the pilot established on the ILS, in IMC, when an unidentified contact appears heading straight towards the final approach track in front of the airliner? Not trying to be smart, just interested to know if there are some answers!
Historically, operations outside CAS have relied upon the 'see and avoid' principle. This is impossible to exercise in transport aircraft, on account of their speed
If the main threat to jet airliners outside CAS is GA aircraft then the speed differential means that all the threats should be in the airliner's 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock sector, making it much easier to search visually.
Probably the bigger threat to CAT operations outside CAS is with the likes of Saab 340s operating in areas where there is a lot of military fast jet activity. Then the threats can appear from way beyond the airliner flight deck field of view.
The other point not yet made in this thread is, at radar-equipped airports outside CAS, at what point in the approach does the controller stop giving a RAS? Is a RAS still possible with the aircraft flying at minimum vectoring altitude? And what then happens when the aircraft descends below that? What does the controller say to the pilot established on the ILS, in IMC, when an unidentified contact appears heading straight towards the final approach track in front of the airliner? Not trying to be smart, just interested to know if there are some answers!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth,
Respectfully, I hope you haven't simply forgotten the mid-air collisions involving fast jets versus light aircraft and helicopters in the UK in recent years?
Nor the (sometimes horrific) close calls involving fast jets versus public transport aircraft? Nor the fact that such events, generally speaking, have been found to have 'safe' outcomes entirely by chance? (...and that the public transport crews were generally operating in a 'safe' and 'standard' manner...)
And you can't be thinking that fare-paying passengers shouldn't be afforded some sort of protection against hazard which we forego as flight crew?
Military fast jet activity is fairly easy to understand if you take the time to get to grips with it... The series of Sharespace conferences helped us all towards that.
My point about 'see and avoid' was largely that the regulations and common practices which we have inherited are a consequence of the early days of 'see and avoid' flying in good weather, with additional bolt-on measures added over time. I submit that these are overdue for a significant overhaul.
I'm prepared to accept that small turboprop routes are a different kettle of fish, as they often have greater 'benefits' than jet operations (people who need to get to and from the Scottish Islands rely heavily on such services, and are probably aware that they accept a higher risk than they would getting onto a Cheapojet flight to Spain).
Your point about RAS etc close to airports is a fair one, but largely addressed by the Rules of the Air and their requirements that aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome should comply with the 'pattern of traffic' or else keep well clear. An aircraft on the approach would be part of the 'pattern'. The closer to an airport, arguably, the more safeguards...
Respectfully, I hope you haven't simply forgotten the mid-air collisions involving fast jets versus light aircraft and helicopters in the UK in recent years?
Nor the (sometimes horrific) close calls involving fast jets versus public transport aircraft? Nor the fact that such events, generally speaking, have been found to have 'safe' outcomes entirely by chance? (...and that the public transport crews were generally operating in a 'safe' and 'standard' manner...)
And you can't be thinking that fare-paying passengers shouldn't be afforded some sort of protection against hazard which we forego as flight crew?
Military fast jet activity is fairly easy to understand if you take the time to get to grips with it... The series of Sharespace conferences helped us all towards that.
My point about 'see and avoid' was largely that the regulations and common practices which we have inherited are a consequence of the early days of 'see and avoid' flying in good weather, with additional bolt-on measures added over time. I submit that these are overdue for a significant overhaul.
I'm prepared to accept that small turboprop routes are a different kettle of fish, as they often have greater 'benefits' than jet operations (people who need to get to and from the Scottish Islands rely heavily on such services, and are probably aware that they accept a higher risk than they would getting onto a Cheapojet flight to Spain).
Your point about RAS etc close to airports is a fair one, but largely addressed by the Rules of the Air and their requirements that aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome should comply with the 'pattern of traffic' or else keep well clear. An aircraft on the approach would be part of the 'pattern'. The closer to an airport, arguably, the more safeguards...
Last edited by Astronomy Dominie; 6th Oct 2004 at 18:03.
"people who need to get to and from the Scottish Islands rely heavily on such services, and are probably aware that they accept a higher risk than they would getting onto a Cheapojet flight to Spain"
Rubbish! Whenever I fly to the Islands I don't think I am more at risk than when I fly to Spain. Why would anyone? It's a scheduled airline service and any normal passenger would expect it to be just as safe as any other scheduled airline service. Pax don't know about the intricacies if CAS and non-CAS.
Rubbish! Whenever I fly to the Islands I don't think I am more at risk than when I fly to Spain. Why would anyone? It's a scheduled airline service and any normal passenger would expect it to be just as safe as any other scheduled airline service. Pax don't know about the intricacies if CAS and non-CAS.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
AD:
No, absolutely not, but my point was that CAT aircraft in the high threat areas are generally below FL100 and therefore mostly flying at less than 250kts so the visual search task is not as challenging as it is for your average FJ pilot, who may be flying at closing speeds with threat traffic which are at or beyond the physiological limits of the eye to detect the threat in time to avoid it.
The conventional wisdom - which I am a little sceptical about - is that a systematic approach to lookout greatly increases the chances of detection. I fly pipsqueak aircraft that don't do more than 100kts, and spend a fair bit of time in areas extensively used by the military. I think I'm pretty rigorous about lookout but I'm only too well aware that the collision risk geometry is not in my favour - the one that hits me could just as well come from behind, underneath or above where I can't see anyway.
But I'd be interested to know what additional training the management of Loganair, Eastern Airways, FlyBE and other airlines that spend a lot of time outside CAS give to their pilots in methods of lookout and the physiology of visual detection. I'm guessing probably none.
I'm intrigued by your notion that greater collision risk is more acceptable for pax going to the islands because they get greater socio-economic benefit from the services. The RAF of course used the same sort of argument for many years - we can't have CAS south of Newcastle because the defence of the realm requires us to be able to point the nose at the sky, light the burners and blast through the civil air routes.
I agree see and avoid is a very poor way of preventing collisions but there are things that can be done, short of slapping CAS everywhere, to improve its effectiveness. Things such as getting CAT crews to always have one set of eyes out of the cockpit when outside CAS, stopping RAF FJ crews from selecting dive/toss targets underneath the final approaches to major airports (Prestwick a couple of years ago) and better means of sharing traffic info between civil and military users of airspace.
I hope you haven't simply forgotten the mid-air collisions involving fast jets versus light aircraft and helicopters in the UK in recent years
The conventional wisdom - which I am a little sceptical about - is that a systematic approach to lookout greatly increases the chances of detection. I fly pipsqueak aircraft that don't do more than 100kts, and spend a fair bit of time in areas extensively used by the military. I think I'm pretty rigorous about lookout but I'm only too well aware that the collision risk geometry is not in my favour - the one that hits me could just as well come from behind, underneath or above where I can't see anyway.
But I'd be interested to know what additional training the management of Loganair, Eastern Airways, FlyBE and other airlines that spend a lot of time outside CAS give to their pilots in methods of lookout and the physiology of visual detection. I'm guessing probably none.
I'm intrigued by your notion that greater collision risk is more acceptable for pax going to the islands because they get greater socio-economic benefit from the services. The RAF of course used the same sort of argument for many years - we can't have CAS south of Newcastle because the defence of the realm requires us to be able to point the nose at the sky, light the burners and blast through the civil air routes.
I agree see and avoid is a very poor way of preventing collisions but there are things that can be done, short of slapping CAS everywhere, to improve its effectiveness. Things such as getting CAT crews to always have one set of eyes out of the cockpit when outside CAS, stopping RAF FJ crews from selecting dive/toss targets underneath the final approaches to major airports (Prestwick a couple of years ago) and better means of sharing traffic info between civil and military users of airspace.