Emir wrote:
I’m surprised that such simple and obvious approach hasn’t been implemented in UK. I was under impression that it’s everywhere like that.
So designing an approach would entail mandatory controlled airspace?
On the “every runway has an approach doctrine”, the requirements for these approaches would be:
- In VMC, you are just like any other person flying VFR. Eyes out. You have no priority over VFR and they are not required to avoid the approach path.
- In IMC, you shall be talking on the relevant frequency (On the approach plate. If no one is on the ground station, make position reports) (and probably add transponder on)
Noe wrote:
So designing an approach would entail mandatory controlled airspace?
Why not? It’s so obvious that I don’t see that any explanation is needed?
Noe wrote:
On the “every runway has an approach doctrine”, the requirements for these approaches would be:
- In VMC, you are just like any other person flying VFR. Eyes out. You have no priority over VFR and they are not required to avoid the approach path.
- In IMC, you shall be talking on the relevant frequency (On the approach plate. If no one is on the ground station, make position reports) (and probably add transponder on)
This is not realistic at all. If you think that CAT would agree with first scenario then you need to check at least one CAT SOP or any business aviation SOP. Transponder should be mandatory in any flying in controlled airspace.
Emir wrote:
Why not? It’s so obvious that I don’t see that any explanation is needed?
Because I and a lot of others would be perfectly happy doing approaches in uncontrolled airspace. Liners used to do them at Southend, and do it at many regional airports / See note about Sweden, and I believe the US also does it that way where their class E doesn’t require radio / transponder for VFR traffic.
How do you think CAT do now, when they fly in certain airspaces where you might have a non-radio / non-transponder contact? I think the answer “they don’t do that” is just wrong.
Noe wrote:
On the “every runway has an approach doctrine”, the requirements for these approaches would be:
- In VMC, you are just like any other person flying VFR. Eyes out. You have no priority over VFR and they are not required to avoid the approach path.
- In IMC, you shall be talking on the relevant frequency (On the approach plate. If no one is on the ground station, make position reports) (and probably add transponder on)
Yes, with ATC talking only to the IFR traffic (in general) and sequencing IFR operations into and out of the non-towered airport. VFR talks non-mandatorily on CTAF, and IFR traffic switches to CTAF after being cleared for the approach. It’s not rocket science except that you need ATC coverage for the Class E airspace in the area of the airport.
In IMC, you shall be talking on the relevant frequency
Except in the UK, two-way continuous communications under IFR is not required.
It’s a filed ICAO difference contrary to Annex 11 Chap 2 Para 2.6.3.
I have no idea why it’s there.
JnsV wrote:
You say that it is a RMZ. How can then someone be there without talking? Or did I miss something?
Yes, you obviously did miss something. The RMZ at those two named airports are from ground to 1000 feet AGL. Flying at – in my example, 3500 feet – you are above the RMZ, means no need to speak with the tower. As the Airspace above it is Class E, in Germany you can fly this VFR without the need for any contact with (e.g.) FIS….
James_Chan wrote:
talk to ATC (which is mandatory in controlled airspace)
No it isn’t. Class E is controlled airspace but establishing radio communications is only required for IFR, not VFR, in Germany.
James_Chan wrote:
They could be cleared to an altitude that avoids the other aircraft.
Your solution, that airports with IFR approaches should apply and be granted controlled airspace would have a massive negative effect in that a number of UK controllers at such lesser airports actually view Class D as ‘their’ airspace and tend to have the attitude ‘if you ain’t landing, you ain’t coming inside / transiting it VFR’ – after all, ‘remain OCAS due to controller workload’ is enough to shut up those irksome VFR oiks wanting to access ‘MY’ airspace – so their rationale seems to go.
So for that reason alone, I would be vehemently against more airspace grabs. However my solution would, instead of a blanket issuance of controlled airspace, is to have it restricted, granted as Delta(HX) would appear to be more appropriate – with the airspace Delta only in force when actual IFR approaches are in progress. That way if no one is using the airspace, we still have access…..
Steve,
a number of UK controllers … tend to have the attitude ‘if you ain’t landing, you ain’t coming inside / transiting it VFR’
I would oppose controlled airspace if that were the case. However I have seen extremely little evidence of this happening. So little that I wonder if it was ever fabricated by GA.
Much rather I have seen airspace being over-classified to Class A.
I do like the part time CAS idea though.
Because I and a lot of others would be perfectly happy doing approaches in uncontrolled airspace.
Obviously I fail to see the advantages of flying in uncontrolled space. If you can be more specific than being just happy, it would help me in understanding.
The advantages of controlled space are more obvious at least for me: avoidance, improved safety, reduced cockpit workload.
Anyhow, I believe that trend in increasing air traffic will lead to restrictring uncontrolled airspace, like it or not.
James_Chan wrote:
I would oppose controlled airspace if that were the case. However I have seen extremely little evidence of this happening. So little that I wonder if it was ever fabricated by GA.
Just because you’ve never experienced it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I used to do the trip Kemble – Gloucester – Dunkeswell regularly in an Arrow, from Gloucester to Dunkeswell I would always prefer flying 4500 feet or higher for economy / performance. 9 times out of 10 I had the choice of either going around Bristol to the East (remaining clear of CAS) or ducking down the MIG alley over Avonmouth. Believe me, the excuse given was always ‘remain clear of controlled airspace due to controller workload’. It was also the reason they claimed to only be able to offer a basic service….. Having said that, if you wanted to do sightseeing over the city – for example, take photos of the Clifton Suspension Bridge or of Concorde on Filton, I was allowed to do it three times out of four requests, as long as I didn’t cross their threshold – i.e., if I was north of the field, I was instructed to remain North of the Avon; if I was returning from the South, I was asked to remain OCAS till VRP Avonmouth Bridge and then cleared to enter…..
Others have had the same experience, they are refused transits north / south. Others going East / West seem more fortunate. Don’t know why, don’t particularly care as I stopped flying that route a while back but it does make me averse to additional Class D (or C) airspace….
