boscomantico wrote:
It seems the UK deon’t want to do that, since they want the dreaded “known traffic environment” as far as possible…
You know what, I’d install Mode-S and ADS-B tomorrow if the CAA committed to redesigning airspace in such a way that the ‘known traffic environment’ had a benefit to light GA, such as getting rid of class A airways close to the surface – e.g. reclassify to class D and make VFR transits a practical reality, reducing the size of class D airspace associated with an airport (and perhaps replacing some of it with class E) etc. But without the carrot, I don’t see much reason to upgrade from the current Mode-C transponder I have already.
It seems the UK deon’t want to do that, since they want the dreaded “known traffic environment” as far as possible…
Yes, although I suspect the system feeds itself.
You have mostly inadequate PPL training, mostly inadequate pilot currency (20-30hrs/year?), the above mentioned “hard core” of pilots who won’t use GPS even though they evidently cannot navigate in other ways, so you get the 1000 busts per year, and that makes it very hard for the GA organisations (“organisation” is wishful thinking, also) to argue for tighter CAS.
Personally if I could not use GPS I would give up flying because I would regard it almost impossible to get around with the required level of confidence. There aren’t enough VORs around, etc.
Also, crucially, you have the IMC Rating which is good for IFR in D,E,F,G, so removing the Class A would make the IMCR a de facto full IR in UK airspace, which is obviously a “bit of a problem”, both obviously politically and IMHO practically too. That is incidentally why EASA’s (Eric Sivel’s) offer to expand the IMCR pan-Europe should all the other countries agree to it was grossly disingenous, because most of them don’t have Class A….
But without the carrot,
Carrots are not used in Europe. You go straight for the stick
TIS via Mode S was not implemented because it would be another PCB + a software module in the ATC software – cost reported c. 100k. Most GA pays no route charges, so…
It isn’t gonna happen. GA has to manage on its own. And IMHO it is not hard. The tools exist.
I’d lay the blame for UK airspace busts, right back at the door of the CAA.
In my mind it goes like this.
Airports, want commercial traffic. It pays far better than GA. Apart from landing fees (which might not be all that much with loco’s) they buy lots of fuel, and the passengers passing through make commercial space inside the terminal rentable as shops, bars, cafes, duty free, car parking etc.
Having controlled airspace is makes it much more attractive for commercial traffic, as they don’t end up being vectored all over the place to avoid a C150 who’s not talking to anyone in class G. So it makes sense for airports to look for this controlled airspace.
But the airports want to keep costs to a minimum, so they employ the least possible number of controllers. If they can get away with this, it’s a reasonable strategy for them. Get what you want, for the minimum cost. As a result of the minimum number of controllers, GA has a hard time getting transits. The controllers simply are too busy.
So GA, takes the reasonable approach of objecting to controlled airspace as much as possible, as they find themselves excluded, irrespective of the good intentions in the proposal documents.
The Director of Airspace Policy does the best they can to find a compromise, and makes sure that the airport gets the least amount of controlled airspace that makes sense. This gets the airport what they want, but with the least possible amount of controlled airspace. GA are happier than they would otherwise be, because the controlled airspace (which they expect to be excluded from) is kept as small as possible.
But the result is very irregular shaped airspaces that are difficult to identify on a cluttered chart and easily mistaken. This results in pilots making mistakes and misidentifying (or not identifying at all) airspace, or bases of airspace and making a bust.
What would make far more sense, is standardised airspace structures (upside down wedding cakes….ummmm….cake), where GA getting transits was a trivial matter, easily achieved and can be reasonably assumed by GA. The only way of making this happen is by the CAA regularly “patrolling” controlled airspace to make sure that GA was getting fair and reasonable access to controlled airspace. Then GA would have nothing to fear from more of it, and the airports would have to have sufficient controllers on duty to make that happens.
The only one that is really in a position to change the situation is the CAA, by monitoring GA access to (and lack of it) to controlled airspace.
At least that’s my theory
How much space in the LGW/LHR area would a US-style upside down cake take up, and what would be the holy war risk acceptance level of a TMZ?
dublinpilot wrote:
I’d lay the blame for UK airspace busts, right back at the door of the CAA.
UK airspace is a mess we all agree and it should be simplified. However I think pilots have to assume responsibility for themselves too. Even in the US there are CAS busts. Some pilots are clueless and don’t pay attention to where they are and this can cause chaos. It isn’t that hard to avoid busting CAS.
Peter wrote:
How much space in the LGW/LHR area would a US-style upside down cake take up, and what would be the holy war risk acceptance level of a TMZ?
I don’t think the LTMA is the biggest problem tbh. It is the secondary airports – SAM, Doncaster etc.
Peter wrote:
The USA has a better system (e.g. two way radio contact entitles you into C and D) but speaking of Europe, I cannot see why there should be significantly fewer busts except for some peripheral reasons e.g.
Maybe that there is typically only one frequency to use at any particular point and FIS that actually uses radar?
Peter wrote:
How much space in the LGW/LHR area would a US-style upside down cake take up
Would that matter given that a US style upside wedding cake doesn’t restrict GA movement to any signicant degree, either under it (which will get you almost anywhere you need to go) or in it with ATC contact?
I think the tremendous amount of UK discussion about airspace busts results from the UK population being highly focused on holding other people within limits of all kinds. The first thing you do in setting up a social class system is train the underclass to self regulate; it’s very effective.. That happened 1000 years ago in the UK and it will take another 100 years or more for the UK to grow out of it. Just my opinion. Obviously UK airspace is chaotic and UK rules are chaotic but I doubt there is much more chance of a collision as a result, or a practical need for the tremendous amount of UK discussion on airspace busts.
I almost busted Class B yesterday, BTW I was descending from 7500, got distracted and touched a corner of 4800 floor Class B. The lines on the chart are wide enough to argue it either way. Nobody said anything and probably nobody cared greatly in that particular location. For that I’m happy.
UK airspace is horrendously over-complicated and has low-level ‘VFR-impenetrable’ Class A airspace everywhere, sitting on top of airports that run narrow Class G corridors between their Class D.
The larger UK airports also have a huge attitude on wanting to get rid of all the small and light, even when there is plenty of runway capacity available. So light GA gets relegated to neighbouring reliever airports and both worlds almost never meet… until someone infringes!
It’s no wonder pilots bust the airspace day in, day out, for the past 15 years. Almost 1000 per year, I think.
There is simply no frequency to call to access the Class A airspace concerned.
The air traffic controllers of today call it a ’dog’s dinner’ – an archaic mess that has just evolved in a piecemeal fashion over the past 50 years with no serious, nor strategic thought, and is in serious need of redesigning from a clean slate.
The problem is, finding the money to do it.
In the USA and in many other countries, the set up is simpler and the larger aerodromes are much friendlier. All traffic – commercial, military and GA is integrated safely. You fly and land where you like, pretty much. There is a ‘buffer zone’ outside terminal airspace where you may call if you wish, and ATC handles the rest for you from there.
The infringement issue in the UK is very much a making of the attitudes that once wanted, and to a lesser degree still exist today, to exclude GA from airspace and aerodromes.
Would that matter given that a US style upside wedding cake doesn’t restrict GA movement to any signicant degree, either under it (which will get you almost anywhere you need to go) or in it with ATC contact?
I have not verified it (don’t have US VFR charts to hand immediately) but it has been claimed that if you stuck the US upside down cake at every major UK airport location, there would be hardly any “OCAS” left.
Then we have the separate argument that Class E works only if you have State (taxpayer) funded ATC – because everybody drilling a hole in a cloud needs to obtain an IFR clearance from a controller. This cannot be in the UK because of ATC privatisation and most GA paying no route charges.
So we have about 50 interlocked reasons why The Answer Is NO
But, my drift in my OP was that if people could navigate (using the best available tool by far) there is plenty of Class G to get about in, and without bothering anybody in CAS.
There is simply no frequency to call to access the airspace concerned.
Really? Every airspace is labelled – example
Or maybe you mean the London TMA? That is watched by e.g. Farnborough Radar who get paid a bit of money for doing it.
James_Chan wrote:
In the USA and other countries where the set up is simpler, there is a ‘buffer zone’ outside terminal airspace where you are advised to call
In the US you’re either in Class B/C/D or you’re outside B/C/D (generally in Class E) and ATC contact is not advised by FAA as a result of being in a zone surrounding those B/C/D airspace areas. What is generally necessary in the surrounding zone is to squawk VFR with a Mode C transponder. ATC would be overwhelmed if everybody asked for Flight Following just because they were somewhere near Class B/C/D airspace.
Peter wrote:
I have not verified it (don’t have US VFR charts to hand immediately) but it has been claimed that if you stuck the US upside down cake at every major UK airport location, there would be hardly any “OCAS” left.
That wouldn’t be true in a practical 3-D sense because only the very center of the upside down wedding cake matters, and most GA flies around in Class E underneath, mostly talking to nobody except when operating at a Class D airport.
US VFR charts are available here should you need them.