Radio Mandatory Zone (size of a CTR) Southend from 18/7/2014

[FlyOnTrack]

See Hot News on http://www.flyontrack.co.uk for more info and extent, but basically, radio mandatory unless otherwise approved prior to flight in a CTR-sized area around Southend from 18/7/2014, review next January.
edit: Chart (probably too big to imbed):
http://www.caa.co.uk/images/14/southend250amended.jpg

[Flying John]

How bl**dy stupid is that. So it means someone departing Rocheste for practice at St Marys marsh now has to talk to Southend instead of Rochester, losing all spacial awareness of other aircraft using Rochester for a traffic service.

For many training at Rochester the zone covers an extended downwind and a long final approach.

For Stoke airfield, mostly microlights , often non radio or hard to read handhelds in open cockpits I guess they wont be able to fly.

This is high handed action by CAA, who have clearly been bullied into this by Southend, just because they are "commercial" . Well we also have equal rights to use Gods atmosphere too.

Ridiculous, are the LAA making any representation. What a mess.

[Alan Kilbride]

Didn't you read Brian's editorial in this month's magazine?
The CAA's promise of a lighter touch and more GA friendly must mean Southend wanted an RMZ from the Wash to mid Channel.

[Flying John]

Its a classic planningv trick.

Ask for ten times what you actually need, then when you are given a tenth of what you asked for the objectors think you have been put in your place and they have won.

Oh and the mag only arrived today saving it for later !

John

[Chris Martyr]

That's a big, big area for a bored controller. Someone tell me that it's April 1st .

[ROB. THOMASSON]

I actually think this is pretty reasonable. Compared with their request of a CTR that big a radio zone is a lot less. Remember the Upper Heyford mandatory reporting area? OK you have to say hello on the radio, hardly a life changing event.
If you want a strop, go and put an end to Farnborough's demands for half the world for a few private jet movements.

Rob

[Chris Martyr]

Pretty reasonable ? Not for their amount of traffic movements it ain't !

OK,,,If it is just going to remain a Mandatory Radio Zone then yes , of course we can all press our PTTs and say hello, but how long before it becomes a Transponder Mandatory Zone , and then its CTR starts bulging at the waist . This is just a pre-cursor to what they would like to see as a massive airspace grab , which I don't believe it will be, as I'm pretty sure that it is the age-old bluff of asking for a bakers dozen and then settling for what you'd really wanted in the first place.
As for the UHMRA comparison , well you can't really compare the two , as UHMRA encompassed a whole shed load of military airfields that played a very significant role back in the cold war days and asking for an ident in those pre mode- S days wasn't at all unreasonable. They weren't taking the p*ss , but these guys are !
Look at the amount of GA movements that could be affected here, Rochester, Farthing Corner ,Damyns Hall, just to mention a few.
Nobody's got a strop on here Rob, as I'm sure that everyone who has registered their displeasure with this lot has also done the same thing with TAG Farnborough.
It is starting to get a bit wearing though .

[G.Dawes]

Has to be one of those new fangled radios though, your 5 crystal one is no good.

[ROB. THOMASSON]

Well let's play along for now. If we can show safe movements with a radio reporting zone this will disarm their arguments for anything else. They could have been given a TMZ off the ends of the runway like Stanstead has. If it works, they won't fix it.

[James Chan]

Personally I think the RMZ is slightly too large.

But then again it gives the option of not having to comply with ATC instructions, unlike controlled airspace.
Which probably means you can stick your blimp and refuse to move it on 3nm final.

[John Brady]

lets step back from the "disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" posts and look at this RMZ in perspective.

1. For some time there has been a view at the CAA that the step between Class G and a Class D CTR/CTA was too big. The RMZ and TMZ have been formalised to fill that gap.

2. The fact that Southend applied for an RMZ despite their Class D consultation stating that an RMZ would not be adequate suggests to me that their tea leaves have been read.

3. The CAA have said that they will review the Class D application in Spring 2015 suggesting to me that they want to see if an RMZ is sufficient. If it is the Class D is likely to quietly disappear.

4. You can bet your boots that Southend would like the RMZ to be proved inadequate and they will be looking for violations and airproxes to support that.

5. So it behoves us to make the RMZ work if we don't want the mega-Class D to arrive next year.

6. Meanwhile, some of us in the LAA/BGA and BHPA have been working together to resolve issues that are now being recognised in RMZs and TMZs. The main one is that if this was class D airspace there would be no requirement for "standard" separation between IFR and VFR aircraft. However an RMZ is Class G so the separation standards in ATSOCAS apply - 5 nm between aircraft on a deconfliction service and unknown aircraft and 3nm and 1000ft from co-operating aircraft. This 5nm seems to be the reason that this RMZ is 10nm wide and we think that is too much. If it was Class D the controller could put IFR aircraft right up to the boundary but in an RMZ it appears they have to keep 5nm away. We think there needs to be a review of policy on RMZ and TMZ separation standards and we are working together to achieve that.

So please try to make the RMZ work for us and hopefully we will be able to change it in our favour. If Southend can show it does not work we are at risk ofthem getting their lebensraum next year.

John

[John Dean]

Being based very close to Southend's RMZ, I have no objection at all to trying to make it work if it will mean their demand for Class D airspace vanishes. However, where TMZ's are concerned I object strongly to Mode S transponders being mandated. We were sold the idea of the TMZ with Mode C being sufficient and I see no reason why this could not have continued.

"disgusted of Tonbridge Wells"

Many residents of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge could get upset by you mixing up the two towns. . I could explain the reason why Tonbridge is spelt thus but pronounced with a "u" but that would be boring.

[James Chan]

please try to make the RMZ work for us

John Brady, thank you again for the update and for all the work you've been doing. It's encouraging to see the CAA recognising RMZs/TMZs to bridge the gap between Class D and Class G.

Something I'm trying to get to grips with is how you envision the RMZ to "work". Should pilots follow any of the ATC instructions given within it?

If the answer is no, I'd imagine as you say for Southend to monitor and report on airproxes and the like to see if their demand for controlled airspace is justified.

If the answer is yes, then I'm not sure why it would be uncontrolled airspace anymore? There are some elements of GA who already complains about ATC attempting to exert control and overstep their responsibility or authority in uncontrolled airspace, viewing them as a hinderance rather than a facilitator of flight.

[Rob Swain]

I'll come clean up-front and say I live far away from Kent and Essex.

However, I have visited family and fiends in Kent and have flown through the Southend environs.

Knowing how stroppy they have been getting of late I made sure I called them up. When going south in the morning they were pretty disinterested and offered no service whatsoever, not bothering with a squawk or anything like that.
In the afternoon on the way home they just about acknowledged that I had called them and got rid of me while only 2 miles beyond the Southend ATZ itself, telling me to call another unit that was just about to close.

It would appear they want to be able to clear the skies completely when they have a SleazyJet coming or going, and outside such times are not willing to offer any level of service at all!

Maybe they should publish the Easyjet timetable and call it hours of service!

[Zodiac]

Rob, hear hear, I have finally stumbled across somebody who tells it how it is rather than all the guff from the " oh we are working hard to do this and that" brigade.

You can have as many pointless meetings with the CAA as you like, but I have yet to see any real difference in what was proposed to what actually happens. As far as airspace is concerned Norwich has got a great big lump of controlled airspace in spite of all the debating. Are they busier than Southend? Not sure they are.