Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

Post Reply
John Brady
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:39 pm

Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by John Brady » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:42 pm

The CAA has issued a consultation on the proposed introduction of RMZs. Not at a specific place but the principle and process that would pertain if an airport were to apply for an RMZ instead of controlled airspace.

You can find details and a copy of the proposal by following the "Engagement" link on the main page and then "Alerts and Current Issues".

Please put your opinions on this thread and we will pull them together in the LAA response.

John Brady
031926

johnmichie
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:35 am
Location: White Waltham

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by johnmichie » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:39 pm

probably better than full CAS. Am I dreaming to think that some CAS could be downgraded to RMZs?

John
026963

User avatar
Bob F
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:13 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by Bob F » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:55 pm

Pulling teeth springs to mind.
Bob Farrell
036981

C Rule
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:00 pm
Location: South of 70 north

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by C Rule » Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:13 pm

I hear tell that all proposals for allocation of Class D airspace will have to run as a RMZ for a 12month trial period. The allocation/imposition of a RMZ does not require the full consultation process of a Class D application. Which can be very expensive, as environmental impact assessments etc are needed. I think this is the route Farnborough are using.

Felipe Vizoso
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by Felipe Vizoso » Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:21 pm

This seems a much better proposition than having Class D airspace gradually spreading across the UK. Doubtless a squawk will be issued on initial contact - if so this won't be much different from a "Basic Service". It would be great to think that some existing Class D areas would be reclassified as RMZ. Likely?

Nigel Hitchman
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Location: Hinton in the hedges

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by Nigel Hitchman » Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:59 pm

My view is that there needs to be a strict criteria to be met before any RMZ can be established, otherwise they will be turning up everywhere.
There also needs to be strict criteria for the size of the RMZ. The current criteria used for the size of class D airspace seems to be totally inappripriate, ending up with far too large chunks of airspace being gobbled up. It would seem that the airspace is based on low level holds and procedural approaches as well as circuits. There can be no justification for this. The only aispace that should be controlled should be that to allow radar vectors to a ILS/RNAV straight in approach interecepting the glide not below 2000ft and a straight out departure with no turns before 2000ft. This would mean that only a narrow strip of controlled airspace, or RMZ in this situation needs to be provided, not the massive areas of airspace that some airfields want now. Radar should be mandatory for any airfield wanting an RMZ or controlled airspace. If the airfield/airline operator isnt prepared to invest, then why should we be inconvenienced.
The climb performance for the departure part of the airspace should also be based on modern aircraft climb performance, not Avro Yorks or DH Comets!

The rules for the RMZ state
4.3 Before entering an RMZ, an initial call containing the designation of the station being called, callsign, type of aircraft, position, level, the intentions of the flight and other information as prescribed by the competent authority, shall be made by pilots on the appropriate communication channel.

lets remove "other information as prescribed by the competent authoirty" what is stated is already enough. Im here at this level going there.... We dont need to tell "Hinton Radar" that our point of departure was Bodmin and our destination is Wick, that is irrelevant, why all these ATC units want to know that I have no idea!

It should be accepted that on first contact pilots state the above and any reply from the Radio operator should constitute radio contact, thus even if they only say Standby, we have made radio contact and can continue into the RMZ, as we dont need a clearance. No more using Standby to keep people out. This way the RMZ owner will have to provide enough staff and frequencies to handle all the traffic, not like some class D airspace now, where they can be undermanned, but keep the number of aircraft in their class D to a minimum by saying "Standby" or "Remain clear of controlled airspace".

If the use of RMZs is accepted, then the strict criteria of the RMZ should be reviewed every 6 months and if the number of Commercial air traffic movements hasnt added up to those required by the criteria, then the RMZ should be removed. This review should also be done for all Class D airspace and if the numbers dont add enough they are first downgraded to an RMZ and then after a further 6 months the RMZ removed.
014012

Bill Scott
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:25 pm

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by Bill Scott » Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:37 pm

If (BIG if) the RMZ were employed as an alternative to class D, then I'm in favour. If it becomes another level of 'control' in addition to all the CAS extant, then absolutely not.

I agree with previous comments about needing brevity in R/T contact, Also agree that having announced your presence, you should be free to continue. No permission should be required. Subject to allowing appropriate app/dep paths for CAT.

Perhaps there would be scope to have a listening sqawk ? This could be employed in place of that initial R/T contact? A sort of voluntary TMZ arrangement.

Picturing the huge lump of airspace grabbed by Norwich, perhaps this presents an opportunity for the LAA to propose an alternative ? Ditto Doncaster Finningley Robin Hood Chavport etc.
036224

C Rule
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:00 pm
Location: South of 70 north

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by C Rule » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:38 pm

The requirement 4.3
4.3 Before entering an RMZ, an initial call containing the designation of the station being called, callsign, type of aircraft, position, level, the intentions of the flight and other information as prescribed by the competent authority, shall be made by pilots on the appropriate communication channel.
Is a problem when departing from a farm strip out of ground to ground radio contact range and with no mobile phone coverage. I struggle with this when operating out of a strip within Solent Class D
Colin Rule
031831

gasax
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by gasax » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:22 pm

As I read the present proposals they are actually an extension of the present controlled airspace arrangements. They can be implemented in E.F and G airspaces and aircraft can only operate in them after informing the controlling authority, giving the required information, or having met the specific exemption conditions for that RMZ. There is nothing here which contemplates reducing class D airspace to an RMZ. We might largely all want that - but the proposal says nothing about it.

All of that looks much more like an extension of airspace restrictions - particularly if you cannot maintain two way you must avoid the RMZ.

The theory looks ok - but only on the basis that the class D mentioned in many of the responses above is reduced to an RMZ. At the end of the day it is potentially further restricting where non-radio aircraft can operate - on the basis of class D changing to RMZ that is acceptable, with class D plus RMZ absolutely not.

As for the required information "G-ABCD entering RMZ from the X direction" should be more than enough - rather than the usual life story stuff. with a response of "G-ABCD roger" anything more and it might as well be Class D with the associated life stories and an inability to establish two way communications prior to entering the RMZ - just like many Class D areas in the south of the country.
Pete Morris
013242

Tom Sheppard
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by Tom Sheppard » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:04 pm

If C rule is right:
"I hear tell that all proposals for allocation of Class D airspace will have to run as a RMZ for a 12month trial period. The allocation/imposition of a RMZ does not require the full consultation process of a Class D application. "
Then the plan is to apply for an RMZ which will then convert automatically to class D after 12 months succesful "trial" without any consultation.
039097

James Chan
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:49 pm
Location: EGSX

Re: Proposal to Introduce Radio Mandatory Zones (RMZ)

Post by James Chan » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:55 am

I wonder if an RMZ is already satisified by the notion of an ATZ that is present around AFIS and A/G equipped airports? If so, should such ATZs (which is non EU-standard?) be reclassified to an RMZ?
040161

Post Reply