Malibuflyer wrote:
Don’t know enough about the UK but living under an airspace where those 5 miles lateral could be easily achieved, it’s absolutely not “everyone” (as you could easily check yourself by Flightradar), and not even the majority that “loves” to stay away 5 miles from airspace where possible…
@Malibuflyer, in the UK we are supposed to fly MSA or higher and “Take 2” (2 nm and 200ft from the nearest “bustable” area).
Try getting from, say, EGTR to EGMD eastbound around LAM – no chance! You can’t get around EGSG and EGLC CTR with 2 NM separation and you can’t get on top of EGSG and below LTMA as there is no 400ft there. ATZ can be busted and if they did not respond to your transit request, then you have to use “plan B” and I’m not sure it exists.
Or better – east of EGKB. There are areas there that has got Minimum Safety Altitude of 2400ft and LTMA is 2500ft.
How can you possibly fly IFR in that area?!
What is the take 2 policy ? 200ft and 2nm from what?
gallois wrote:
What is the take 2 policy ? 200ft and 2nm from what?
From the nearst airspace (CTR/CTA/TMA/Danger/Restitrcted/ATZ/…)
gallois wrote:
What is the take 2 policy ? 200ft and 2nm from what?
From Airspace..
From edge of CAS, but as previous posts above show some people have been busted for “just in” and your txp could be 200ft off.
I now work with at least 500ft, and sometimes when 200ft is hard to avoid I ask the radar controller to confirm my txp return altitude, and it all gets recorded.
So there is this sort of no man’s land between the two. AIUI airspace design and implementation is supposed to take into account a certain amount of instrument error. It’s a while since I read my ICAO textbooks. But I do remember something along the lines of if you fly along the boundary of say class D and class G airspace it’s the class G rules that apply.
In France, therefore, if someone flew in your no mans land and was penalised by it (and these days there are many ways to prove your actual track and altitude give or take the allowable instrument error) the penalizing body could be penalized themselves for committing an “abuse of power”.
SERA:
Where ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level should
comply with the requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of
airspace.
The UK specifically disregards that rule.
I suspect others do also. In which countries can you fly at say 5000ft when the base of CAS is 5000ft?
I think the reality of not infringing has far more to do with airspace complexity. Try a point to point route anywhere in most of England south of Manchester, and never mind a couple of turning points, you will be weaving all over the place. Then there is the base of CAS to worry about as well. The comparison earlier with granite is a good one. It would be like flying along a canyon with various branches, but you cant fly above the top of the canyon. Of course hardly anyone would do that.
Of course those in the CAA and GASCo never do point to points VFR over any distance so they are clueless, but this is why more infringements occur. Then you add in all sorts of jobsworths who want to protect their little bit of fake ATZ and you have the perfect recipe for chaos, and an unsafe environment, but then no one really cares about a safe environment for GA, or they do to the extent that their idea is to make it sufficiently difficult that fewer people go anywhere.
Preventing trips outside the local cabbage patch is their idea of safety.
Peter wrote:
In which countries can you fly at say 5000ft when the base of CAS is 5000ft?
Sweden.
