What has the Future Airspace Strategy done for us?

[John Brady]

As mentioned in the April Magazine we would like you to tell us what you would like to see from the CAA's FAS project.

The FAS says it endeavours to provide safe, efficient airspace that has the capacity to meet reasonable demand and balances the needs of all users". So can you fly where you want to fly, when you want to fly and how you want to fly and can you do so with adequate safety and without getting in the way of others? Please tell us what is what you think needs fixing and how it should be fixed and we will have a go.

Don’t be shy or constrained by the thought that something will never happen. Do nothing and it won’t but tell us and it just might. Be imaginative. We really need to know what it is that riles you about airspace including things like communications, radar and ATC services, transponders, danger areas, ATZs, NOTAMs, graphical presentations, activity information, controlled airspace, temporary restricted areas, DZs, changes to maps and charts, aeronautical information, the AIP, internet services, met forecasts (but not the weather), flight plan procedures, rules of the air; the list is endless.

Together we really can make the Future Airspace Strategy do something for us – just tell us what that something should be. Tell your friends and get their opinion. Feel free to use this on other BBs. Go on do it now - nothing ventured nothing gained! Post your views here (preferred as it gives others ideas) or email [email protected]


John Brady

[ChampChump]

I'm working on a reply. 7995 more would be better.

[ChampChump]

I'm working on a reply. 7995 more would be better.

[James Chan]

I have been following FAS/SES with interest.

While the drivers of the project seem to be aligned with the present and future needs of CAT, I believe it is essential that the vast and varied tasks of GA (including non-commercial touring flights, 'bimbling' flights, and all other commercial GA activities such as survey and research work) should not be forgotten about.

I present the following themes for consideration:

1) Access to airspace where ATC participation is mandatory (i.e. CAS) needs to continue and be improved:
- There's too much Class A airspace at the moment which locks out VFR flights.
-- The LAMP redesign of the LTMA should permit VFR flights under ATC clearance, perhaps like SoCal or New York TRACON Class B/C areas.
-- I also cannot see any convincing argument as to why ATS routes should remain Class A.
- Cost concerns for any new equipment to access future airspace, e.g. PRNAV and ADS-B.
These need to be affordable to install while clearances should continue to be granted for the unequipped.

2) Preserving optional partication in ATC system for pilots that do not require it:
- Don't want another 'Italy' or 'Netherlands' with huge volumes of Class A requiring several hours in-advance to file an IFR-only flight plan, with VFR flights stuck beneath 2000ft / MSA.
- Airpspace boundaries should be simple and avoid over-complication.
- Freedom to fly 'anywhere', 'anytime' is a great feature that shouldn't be lost.

3) Improving fuel efficiency:
- 3Di metrics/scoring could perhaps also apply to GA (esp. touring) flights. Will we suffer greater delays for clearances or having to take up extended routes or kept at very low altitudes due to too much CAT demanding the most optimal routes?
- Better integration of IFR & VFR flights for untowered GA fields into the wider ATC network.

4) Improving safety and reducing pilot workload:
- There's probably a little too much freecalling and squawk code changing over the radio at the moment as we move between LARS-OCAS and CAS 'sectors' when VFR. Handoffs seem to be a lot better when flying abroad with one squawk code over a much larger area - I hear they have better electronic data transfer systems in place?
- Having a common transition altitude would be good.

[ChampChump]

Just a few random thoughts, as I've suddenly run out of time before work again & with no apology for drifting off onto pet rants:

Southend wants class D? I sincerely hope not. Then it will be Manston, with its even more modest service. Listening squawks have to be the answer to many of the airspace issues. Where I am based, the worst-case* would be really dire. Cutting off the south east from anywhere north, much like during the Olympics, isn't a complete exaggeration.

Radios to be changed to new 8.33 spacing: please, no. I have a radio, a Mode C transponder and both are more than I would wish for, but I am not a complete dinosaur. I have read good argument elsewhere that counters the 'need' for the change; I hope this will be pursued (and killled).

What concerns me as much as anything is the presumption by many pilots, I suspect as a result of having been trained to cope with complex airspace and concomitant ATC, that it is necessary to be talking to someone all the time. Of course there are times when it's a good idea, even if not essential, but better by far is listening, & where applicable, listening squawks. It would be good to think pilots talk when necessary, not out of habit. The result might open up enough time for those who need to talk to get a word in.

Odd NOTAMS: (rather like airspace grabbing?) There are a few that have been issued that could have been greatly reduced in impact by the application of some common sense. I realise they are issued by the bodies concerned, but.

And again: Kites on NOTAMS. Really necessary?

Other thoughts will have to wait.

Other members have brains and will raise issues properly, but as you asked, my twoDworth, for which I fully expect to be flamed.





* unless considering things one doesn't even want to consider, which could be worse
still

[James Chan]

ChampChump,

Sadly I've been cut up several times when inbound IFR by "unknown traffic".
The result has been to go around under a period of high workload.

If you don't want to see Southend getting a larger known traffic environment (e.g. Class D) as their IFR movements increase over time, what do suggest they could do?

I think listening squawks only work if there aren't too many aircraft in the same area who are also listening?

[C Rule]

I do find this dash for Class D airspace totally inappropriate and I cite Farnborough's attempt to establish a large area of Class D as a case in point. A RMZ or Class F or E would be much more appropriate if the need could be definitively proven.

[John Brady]

Good work chaps but no moaning now! Tell me what it is you actually want and why and I will try and get it for you. Don't be negative and tell me what you don't want.

I have written about Southend and Farnborough for the next magazine asking pilots to give ATC a call. Listening out is great to mitigate against airspace infringements but no good to these airfields in class G as they have to avoid you by 5 nm unless you speak to them so they know who you are and where you are going.

Please can I have some more WANTS from you.

John

[Alan Kilbride]

I think what I want most is for the BIG boys to stop telling us what we want, when we don't actually want nor need it.
As for Southend. What would James have us do when Southend get their wish? No way to go south without being squeezed by increasing amounts of airspace which is disproportionate to movements.

It was after all class G airspace which allowed "FREE" movement. Now someone wants to take it away from me and aren't willing to pay me compensation. How about providing free Mode S for taking away more of my rights?

I would like to see more accountability for allocation of airspace. If it's not used....remove it.......It it's used less than claimed....remove that too. Adjust the size of many other minor airports class D.

[James Chan]

What would James have us do when Southend get their wish? No way to go south without being squeezed by increasing amounts of airspace which is disproportionate to movements.

But this isn't Class A? Any other class of airspace allows VFR flight. I request transit when my most direct route takes me through CAS so that I don't have to waste time and fuel going round it. I find I need to do this more often on the continent where CAS is larger. Fortunately controllers have, in my experience, on the whole done their best to accommodate and I don't recall being denied a clearance unreasonably.

I do think instrument approaches deserve some sort of protection however. Class E, probably with RMZ or TMZ, may be a better alternative than D or G in some places. Or are all these ICAO A to G classifications too complex and deserve some simplification? What happened to Eurocontrol's N-K-U proposal?

Ultimately one person's freedom to fly anywhere may mean someone else's re-rerouting. Too much re-routing and another person becomes unhappy. There's a balance to be achieved so future airspace needs to be managed smartly.

[Alan Kilbride]

That's fine if it were only true James. All too often we hear of transits being refused,which only alienates the majority of vfr pilots who ask for one.
Joined up thinking isn't hard. Why must I give up airspace,which up until now could use freely so that others might make a profit? At least buy my silence with mode S.
Having said that Southend have never been a problem ans should be contacted as a matter of good airmanship.

[James Chan]

All too often we hear of transits being refused,which only alienates the majority of vfr pilots who ask for one. Why must I give up airspace,which up until now could use freely so that others might make a profit?

I think profit is only a tertiary effect. The primary effect is improved flight safety and the secondary effect is improved flight efficiency?

I don't think anyone wants to be involved in a collision with other traffic (airliner, GA, military, whatever). The see-and-avoid principle has limitations.

Flying inside controlled airspace may mean that one can't do anything they like all the time, but neither can I when I drive my car towards busy roads and junctions with traffic lights. Remove those traffic lights and you probably get the chaos and congestion you see in developing countries.

If the transit is refused then there's probably already too much traffic inside in order to safely integrate another one. A quick look at the aerodrome's departure and arrivals schedule should give a better idea of when ad-hoc transits are more likely to be refused.

However if the airspace isn't being managed well enough and transit traffic is being unreasonably refused then it needs to be addressed. One example of this might be the rigid Class A TMA airspace introduced to protect EGLC IFR departures and arrivals when EGLC is actually closed (e.g. every Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning). Another example might be the Q41 Class A airway with a base of FL35 towards the Channel Islands zone which is rarely used at the lower levels.

Do I really need to hold an instrument rating to use airspace in clear VMC?

[Penguin]

I want to be able to fly where I want when I want. There is too much controlled airspace with controllers who like to say NO. We have the equipment (data streams) to tell anyone who would like to listen who we are, where we are and where we are going. There should be some way of electronically negotiating a heading that would allow you to go in about the right direction while remaining clear of other aircraft. We already spend too much time looking at the map or the GPS trying to avoid CAS. Increasing the amount of CAS (Farnborough, Southend, Oxford, Southampton) will only increase the problem - and the number of infringements. We should use technology to reduce the amount of CAS and to de-conflict aircraft.

While that all happens I want to be able to file a VFR flight plan that is useful. Currently a VFR flight plan is useless. If I call up a radar unit for a service they will not have looked at my flight plan and will require my life-story over the radio - a huge waste of frequency time. With the advent of Mode S ATC units have the ability to know who we are, why cannot they correlate the Mode S ID with the flight plan to find out who we are, what we are, where we came from and where we are going. We should also be able to request a particular type of service on the flight plan. The radio conversation would then be something like,
"Farnborough, G-ABCD, 2000 ft on 1015"
"G-CD, Farnborough radar roger, QNH 1015 you are identified, traffic service"
"Traffic service, 1015 roger, G-CD"
There would be much more time available on the frequency, and the controller may be able to do something useful for the aircraft he is working - like provide a traffic service instead of a basic service "due to controller workload"!

Mode S is currently of little use to us - when it may be useful a traffic service is usually not available. We must find a way of freeing up controller time to offer useful services.

I have to agree with the profit motive for increased CAS - CAT wants to fly short straight lines and not have to get out of the way of light GA, so they see large lumps of CAS as the answer. It may get dressed up as a flight safety issue, but I would suggest that is the secondary benefit as improved flight efficiency = less cost, and is the same as more profit.

Pete

[Nigelcot]

ChampChump,

Sadly I've been cut up several times when inbound IFR by "unknown traffic".
The result has been to go around under a period of high workload.

If you don't want to see Southend getting a larger known traffic environment (e.g. Class D) as their IFR movements increase over time, what do suggest they could do?

I think listening squawks only work if there aren't too many aircraft in the same area who are also listening?

I am interested as to why you feel you have been "cut up" and should have some different priority to everyone else.
Presumably these events happened in VMC conditions outside controlled airspace so the other parties had just as much right to be there as you, and surely your separation was based on see and be seen.

Is it not the case that Instrument Approaches at minor airports enable more utility when weather conditions prohibit VFR flight, when conflict is unlikely, while the surrounding airspace remains available to all users in VFR conditions when their use isn't required.

As an aside I am aware of an instrument approach that passes within a mile or so of a gliding site, the site already has many incidences of GA traffic blundering straight through the overhead are you suggesting the gliding club should be closed down by imposition of Class D airspace so the Instrument Approach is protected when no glider would be flying when the approach was actually needed?

[James Chan]

Nigelcot,

I was in IMC so it wasn't possible to see and avoid - not that I had felt that I had any more right of way over any other legitimate transiting traffic.

But if the intentions of traffic are known at the time then I think the situation could be much better managed and different people's needs met, say on a first-come-first-serve principle. Deconfliction minima can consequently be reduced.

An extreme case would be that someone accidentally or deliberately 'sits' in the middle of an IAP in IMC & non-radio and blocks IFR inbound flights.