[James Chan]

Is it not you who has come on to the thread with an assumption of knowing more than others?

Not me Misc, I have posted many times on many threads that I am just an ordinary private pilot flying Cessna 172s across Europe and sharing my experience and knowledge that I've learnt along the way. I certainly do not wish to be one of those 'holier than thou' people to others.

A great diagram rf3flyer, but can you explain this further:

However, since the analysis was done to support or refute the CAT safety case, excluded from consideration was any airprox wholly between military aircraft, ie. no civilian aircraft involvement, for the very simple reason that there would be nothing at all Inverness could do to influence the event unfolding.
Had it involved a military aircraft in conflict with a civilian one of any category it would have been included.

(My underline) Are you saying that:
1) No amount of controlled airspace is going to stop a mil<-->mil collision, and
2) CAT does not need to care even if the military collided between themselves above them?

[rf3flyer]

A great diagram rf3flyer, but can you explain this further:

However, since the analysis was done to support or refute the CAT safety case, excluded from consideration was any airprox wholly between military aircraft, ie. no civilian aircraft involvement, for the very simple reason that there would be nothing at all Inverness could do to influence the event unfolding.
Had it involved a military aircraft in conflict with a civilian one of any category it would have been included.

(My underline) Are you saying that:
1) No amount of controlled airspace is going to stop a mil<-->mil collision, and
2) CAT does not need to care even if the military collided between themselves above them?

What I am saying is that the military are the military and are a law unto themselves. I'm NOT saying they would just disregard CAS willy nilly but I have heard over the radio, eg. Aberdeen advising their traffic of fast moving pop-up traffic clearly inside their CAS, so it does happen.
There were a few posts some years back on the PPrune ATC forum where one of the INS controllers bewailed that they watched on their (newish) radar two Tornados collide SE of Wick and that there was nothing they could do. Not only was it none of their business, but nor would they have the radio equipment to speak to the pilots, VHF not UHF.

Your point 2) is, I feel, just too silly to respond to.

[ChrisRowland]

Nicely summed up, PeteM.

Oh, and to Chris Rowland, you have a pm.

I got an email and a PM with an offer to let me see a not for publication airprox analysis.
Not sure why I should be granted such access - and from whom? Someone who is anonymous, at least to me.

Chris

[NorthSouth]

Who are these controllers that want to treat Class G as if it was Class D, and Class D as if it was Class C?

There's a now longstanding tradition in UK ATC that IFR traffic is given 1000ft vertical separation against VFR traffic below in Class D, although there are no rules that require it. And that usually works OK without unduly restricting either party. There's also a fairly sensible ATC practice (at most airfields) that VFRs aren't allowed to cross a runway or approach in front of landing IFR traffic, in case it has to go around. But holding VFRs away from the entire approach area, or on the ground, for long periods because of an IFR some distance away seems to me to reflect bad training and a badly written MATS Part 2.

Where do they get these ideas?

[James Chan]

Where do they get these ideas?

I think it's down to how they interpret their 'duty of care' principle.

Your point 2) is, I feel, just too silly to respond to.

You're right. It was a silly point but I still think it makes a point, and that is anyone would care if anything collides near them irrespective of whether they are military or civilian. That's why I don't yet buy the argument that mil<-->mil in airprox analysis should be excluded.

Unfortunately I also don't yet believe they should be excluded because they are a 'law unto themselves'.

Happy to be persuaded though.

[Paul_Sengupta]

There's a now longstanding tradition in UK ATC that IFR traffic is given 1000ft vertical separation against VFR traffic

Only 1000ft? Luxury!

[NorthSouth]

There were a few posts some years back on the PPrune ATC forum where one of the INS controllers bewailed that they watched on their (newish) radar two Tornados collide SE of Wick and that there was nothing they could do. Not only was it none of their business, but nor would they have the radio equipment to speak to the pilots, VHF not UHF

Ostensibly a distressing account, but misleading, for the following reasons:
1) Both aircraft were operating VFR and therefore wholly responsible for their own separation
2) One of the Tornados was told about the other just before they left the Lossie Radar frequency
3) Both were operating on the Tain Range frequency at the time. Tain range doesn't have radar. But the two aircraft were aware they were in the same airspace just before they collided.
4) Inverness controllers will see pairs of military aircraft in very close proximity to each other on their radar every day of the week. But they will have no basis whatsoever to judge whether those aircraft are in danger of colliding. And even if they were in RT contact with Inverness, most of them would only be on a Basic Service under which the controller has no obligation to provide traffic information.
5) It's not true that they couldn't have communicated because they only have VHF and the Tornados only have UHF. Tornados have always had both.

I think if Inverness controllers were arguing that they should be able to offer collision warning services to all aircraft within their radar's coverage, I suspect they might be subject to a few quiet words from the HIAL management as well as from the LARS provider for the area (Lossiemouth) and from the pilots of military aircraft in the area.

[James Chan]

I also think anyone genuinely concerned about HIAL ulterior motives should get involved with local politics and make sure there is a space and a voice for GA to access aerodrome infrastructure.

It has been written before - that we must be able to at least access runways and aprons reasonably well or any representations concerning access to 'their' airspace for similar reasons (e.g. perceived plans to make GA lives difficult) will not reallly tackle the root cause of the problem.

[602fan]

Inverness isn't really the issue - it's just the current manifestation of it. The issue is HIAL. And I'm pretty sure that once they've finished with Inverness, Dundee will be next, followed by Kirkwall. Yes, Kirkwall...really

[riverrock]

Out of curiosity, what happens to the Class D when the airport is closed? Would you obtain a clearance from Scottish? I assume it doesn't "disappear" outside hours lime the ATZ?

[James Chan]

I think we should mention in our feedback that we must see it revert to Class G (or E?) when closed.

[rf3flyer]

Out of curiosity, what happens to the Class D when the airport is closed? Would you obtain a clearance from Scottish? I assume it doesn't "disappear" outside hours lime the ATZ?

I'm told it reverts to Class 'G'.

[rf3flyer]

Well the deadline is now past and responses are in. Since the OP learned about this from his gliding club, presumably the Cairngorm Gliding Club at Feshiebridge, let me remark that I think the BGA response in opposing the proposal, superb.

[ChrisRowland]

... presumably the Cairngorm Gliding Club at Feshiebridge, let me remark that I think the BGA response in opposing the proposal, superb.

I'm based at Booker but we have regular expeditions to Aboyne and this is well within the area we could use for cross country.

Chris

[rf3flyer]

Latest on the Inverness Class 'D' grab. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/1272718/inverness-airport-presses-ahead-with-controlled-airspace-plans-despite-objections/