Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
#1895543
@James Chan you make a good point.

In the commercial world we are already discussing whether the priorities we have (basically optimise sequence for max number of aircraft in min amount of time) are right and proper, both now, in a reduced traffic loading, and in the future. For the sake of getting all the aircraft away from the holding point we'd not consider aircraft type in the context of fuel burn....aircraft are aircraft and we sort them into the 'quickest' departure order.

But when the airsport isn't running a 99.6% schedule, shouldn't we think more about sustainability? If an A380 gulps down fuel at, what, 250kgs per min (750kgs of CO2) at ground idle, compared to 25kgs (75kgs of CO2) for an A320? From an environmental point of view an A380 should take utmost priority at the holding point and jump the queue, even if that delays a few A320s by a minute or two.

I can only see this type of thinking becoming more and more important and I don't know what impact that will have on GA, but it's something GA needs to be aware of and start thinking about itself.
Last edited by GonzoEGLL on Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
James Chan liked this
#1895548
I can see it being quite complex as each aircraft’s fuel burn would need to be modelled and inputted properly in order for it to work well. This could answer questions like how many Cessna 172s taking off / transiting would then take precedence over one Citation holding a little bit longer or rerouting slightly.

Also we wouldn’t want some extremes such as a fully electric / solar aircraft to be keyed into the database as zero burn and therefore must make way all the time for everybody else. The pilot of such an aircraft could be so frustrated as he won’t be able to fly in straight lines! :D
#1895553
James Chan wrote:On the IR issue there exists a EASA sub-ICAO BIR for those who cannot do the CBM IR, but I've lost track of where that went since we left EASA.


Indeed, but it isn't really the point. The point is that the large commitment of time and money that go with acquiring the IR, as well as it's upkeep, are part of a system designed to keep amateurs out airspace apparently 'belonging' to professionals.

An FAA-style system of an accessible ICAO IR with a single theory exam, non-FTO tuition, reasonable costs and rolling currency would be entirely unacceptable to the various vested commercial interests in the UK. It would result in a much higher % of private aviators having an IR, filing IFR flightplans in CAS and getting in their way. The relatively small number that exist now they can deal with, but they don't want any more doing it.

The same thing is behind the various anti N-reg maneuvers and requirement for dual papers. If they didn't do this, we'd all go N-reg and start clogging up 'their' CAS with our FAA IRs.

"The best place in the world for GA....... as long as it knows its place and keeps out of the way of our serious business" Hence the pigeon-holing and generalisation of GA as bimblers operating from grass strips.

There is little chance of meaningful change until either the commercial agenda is kicked out of the regulator's bed, or it's acknowledged and made part of formal policy that we all accept.
#1895571
Straight Level wrote:All this talk of surveillance and regular interrogation, I think I'll wear a tin foil hat next time I go flying.
;-)

"Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) is a radar system used in air traffic control, that measure the bearing and distance of targets using the detected reflections of radio signals".

Word definitions often have different meanings in specialist industries to that published in plebsville dictionaries.


Oxford English Dictionary, Plebsville?

maybe the "specialist" should have bought one and selected an appropriate word, rather than one that implies monitoring criminal activity.
#1895594
Sooty25 wrote:
Straight Level wrote:All this talk of surveillance and regular interrogation, I think I'll wear a tin foil hat next time I go flying.
;-)

"Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) is a radar system used in air traffic control, that measure the bearing and distance of targets using the detected reflections of radio signals".

Word definitions often have different meanings in specialist industries to that published in plebsville dictionaries.


Oxford English Dictionary, Plebsville?

maybe the "specialist" should have bought one and selected an appropriate word, rather than one that implies monitoring criminal activity.


Surveillance is a term used in the aviation industry well before 1960s and its ​meaning in 'our' industry is clear, it has nothing to do with monitoring criminal activity.
Does the industry really need an alternative word so not to offend the easily offended just because it is now trendy to do so :roll:
kanga, WhoWhenWhy? liked this
#1895595
With the advent new (EC/TAS) technologies to assist ground-based surveillance systems (PSR/SSR), does anyone know in future what "standard separation" might look like?

Today I've heard of 500ft or less used in some places, 1000ft in others. And 2-3nm or less in some places, 5nm in others.

But for separation between low energy, low speed types, are these going to be reduced even further? And if so, how? Would it be more time based and less fixed-distanced based?
#1895622
Straight Level wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:
Straight Level wrote:All this talk of surveillance and regular interrogation, I think I'll wear a tin foil hat next time I go flying.
;-)

"Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) is a radar system used in air traffic control, that measure the bearing and distance of targets using the detected reflections of radio signals".

Word definitions often have different meanings in specialist industries to that published in plebsville dictionaries.


Oxford English Dictionary, Plebsville?

maybe the "specialist" should have bought one and selected an appropriate word, rather than one that implies monitoring criminal activity.


Surveillance is a term used in the aviation industry well before 1960s and its ​meaning in 'our' industry is clear, it has nothing to do with monitoring criminal activity.
Does the industry really need an alternative word so not to offend the easily offended just because it is now trendy to do so :roll:


Don't even suggest offended, that doesn't happen. Suspicious would be a better!

It'll be the yanks misusing our language that will be the root cause.
#1895650
defcribed wrote:The major change that is really required is universal radar ATSOCAS, defined by a simple pictorial representation of the country showing where one units' area ends and another begins.


That is what was requested by many of the GA reps and is what is proposed in the consultation.

defcribed wrote: This is doubtless a matter of government policy and outwith the control of the CAA, but I am concerned that their way of attempting to deal with it appears to be to layer on the complexity like a particularly viscous chocolate sauce.


It is perhaps worth noting that the Airspace Modernisation Strategy is a joint initiative by DfT and CAA. If the concepts proposed in the consultation are supported via the consultation and then adopted into the AMS, this is written into law.
kanga, Ben K liked this
#1895960
Edward Bellamy wrote:Would this regional FIS be able to co-ordinate IFR traffic outside controlled airspace and do arrivals into aerodromes without approach control / not connected to the enroute network?


That sounds like an excellent piece of feedback with which to respond to the consultation. :thumleft:
Edward Bellamy liked this
#1895967
CAA/ACOG have published the UK Airspace Change Masterplan Iteration 2

This is a very big document, densely packed with information and I suspect of far greater import than many may realise at first glance.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=11106

Heaven knows when I'll get chance to go through it in detail.
#1901414
Edward Bellamy wrote:Would this regional FIS be able to co-ordinate IFR traffic outside controlled airspace and do arrivals into aerodromes without approach control / not connected to the enroute network?


Sorry Ed, I missed your question amongst the noise. One of the big aims of the AMS is to deliver ‘joined up’ air traffic services serving the lower airspace. Obviously a single Flight Information service with surveillance, sectorised, but covering both London and Scottish FIRs will pass live flight data between sectors but also make far greater use of voluntarily submitted VFR flight plan data and correlation with flight ID emitted via EC.

That FIS with surveillance provision, whether delivered via the FIR service or locally by an Aerodrome FISO using cooperative surveillance is envisaged as a key enabler and safety mitigation to delivering GNSS procedures to airfields and other locations (eg PINS approaches to hospitals) not served by controlled airspace and a separation service.
Edward Bellamy, kanga, AlanC liked this
#1901735
GonzoEGLL wrote:But when the airsport isn't running a 99.6% schedule, shouldn't we think more about sustainability? If an A380 gulps down fuel at, what, 250kgs per min (750kgs of CO2) at ground idle, compared to 25kgs (75kgs of CO2) for an A320? From an environmental point of view an A380 should take utmost priority at the holding point and jump the queue, even if that delays a few A320s by a minute or two.


This would lead to a perverse incentive for airlines to be less efficient because that way they get "priority". Instead, I think tackling this at a different point would be more important - for example a carbon tax. Then if operating the A380 is actually more efficient overall (eg. based on CO2 per passenger mile, rather than absolute CO2 per minute) then receiving the same priority as everyone else shouldn't matter for the big picture.

But if anything, the more efficient aircraft should get priority, because that would incentivise everyone to be more efficient.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7