AFAIK the UK is the only European country that makes use of that possibility.
Quite a few examples of controlled airports in class G in France (without CTR or ATIZ) around them. Toussus-le-Noble is one of the better known ones. They normally have a LF-R area around them requiring two-way radio communication.
A cheap shot against those who make this assessment, not you. Sorry if it came across differently.
chflyer wrote:
Am I missing something or does the UK put CAS around all the airfields with IFR IAPs so that ATC is required/available?
According to SERA (and the International Rules of the Air), you can have a controlled airport in uncontrolled (class F/G) airspace. In that case ATC controls traffic “in the vicinity of the aerodrome”. AFAIK the UK is the only European country that makes use of that possibility.
Switzerland, which I thought was the last bastion of “no IFR in Class G”, has recently implemented a mixed environment at Grenchen LSZG which is a very active GA airfield with a mix of VFR/IFR traffic. It has always been a CTR, but because ATC couldn’t maintain presence during all operating hours for staffing/cost reasons, a system of CTR/AFIS/RMZ was established with corresponding airspace class changes during the day and IFR can continue even when ATC is not present (early morning, over lunch, after 5). IFR departures and arrivals are released/closed on the ground via telephone with approach control for Bern. Seems very complicated, but it apparently works.
Longer term the solution for this here in Switzerland and elsewhere will likely be remote ATC that is being implemented per another thread.
Peter wrote:
Sorry – I read it on the internet, but I have read it many times so it must be trueBut, really, isn’t it a regulatory cornerstone that you need to be a “controller” to control aircraft in the air? Ground traffic is different; two planes colliding during taxi is no more serious, in aviation accident (AAIB, NTSB, etc) regulatory terms, than two fire engines colliding (this was actually a Q in some aviation exam I did).
Please pardon my thickheadedness here, and ignorance about UK particularities. I read all the discussions about UK IFR OCAS (obviously without a “controller”) and then that IFR IAPs are not allowed to airfields without ATC. Am I missing something or does the UK put CAS around all the airfields with IFR IAPs so that ATC is required/available? There certainly is no requirement for an approach controller to be located at each airfield since approach control hands off to TWR if the airfield is CAS and terminates radar service if the airfield is OCAS. As far as I’m aware, ICAO rules allow IFR in Class G which seems to include an IAP to an uncontrolled airfield, or does someone have an ICAO reference that says otherwise?
Cobalt wrote:
but isn’t really illogical as you are much more likely to have an accident during landing (or take-off) than you do enroute.<<>sarcasm<>>Yes, it makes sense, and hence I am only allowed to drive at night on a country road if followed by a fire engine, just in case.[/sarcasm]
Why did you edit out the beginning of my posting? Because then you couldn’t make this cheap shot which was entirely uncalled for?
In case you honestly really did not understand what I said: Take-offs and landings are more dangerous than enroute flying. In my safety assessment take-offs and landings for GA are generally safe enough that you don’t need a manned airport. But someone making a different assessment may well consider that that take-offs and landings are dangerous enough to call for manned airports without considering that enroute flight would need continuous two-way radio communication. That would not be illogical, just based on a different safety assessment.
Airborne_Again wrote:
but isn’t really illogical as you are much more likely to have an accident during landing (or take-off) than you do enroute.
<<>sarcasm<>>Yes, it makes sense, and hence I am only allowed to drive at night on a country road if followed by a fire engine, just in case.[/sarcasm]
When was the last time an aircraft crashed on your airfield and needed a fire engine? And in these cases, did the presence of a fire engine make a difference to the life and health of anybody else but the occupants?
I would put it differently – there are two things playing out here
The first of the two makes perfect sense. There is a general tendency for employers to work staff as hard as they can, including interpreting every rule to their benefit to the maximum possible extent, and the only reliable way to combat that has turned out to be really prescriptive rules with no room for interpretation. Hence we end up with a regime where ATC staff cannot arrange their breaks to go with the flow, but have to follow the rules.
The second of the two is manifest nonsense, although depressingly a large part of the pilot community defends it on “safety grounds”. In many countries, people can fly to unattended airfields and strips anytime they want, and the sky hasn’t come crashing down.
Perhaps a Q one might ask is why there aren’t two tiers of ATC: one for CAT and one for GA. The safety requirements are obviously different.
That is the idea, I guess…
Aviathor wrote:
So if the Belgians feel that one cannot land at unattended airfields because someone should be able to alert rescue services, that logic would dictate that one should not fly in class G without FPL and two-way comms so that someone can alert SAR.
I certainly don’t agree with the Belgian policy, but isn’t really illogical as you are much more likely to have an accident during landing (or take-off) than you do enroute.
