Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
#1571651
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Indeed, it was something mooted in the mid-noughties whilst Farnborough LARS was being brought on line. As ever, it came down to cost and who was going to pay. In typical GA fashion (from back then) many of us threw our arms in the air and said we weren't going to pay for anything, stomping our feet like a frustrated two-year old. I was there and saw it - it was embarrassing for GA.

Perhaps our attitudes have moved on a bit (we're certainly more receptive to electronic conspicuity) but again it would come down to paying for a service. The sub-2T brigade is actually quite lucky right now in getting a (disjointed) air traffic service for free. Why should we get something for free purely by virtue of being lightweights? :)
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571663
Dave,

Why should we get something for free purely by virtue of being lightweights?


A joined up system in my head means reduced free-calling, squawk code changing and smoother handovers and easier transits with reduced holding time.

Perhaps commercial air traffic and presumably the airports also benefit by reduced RT waffle from free-callers and less disruption and improved capacity?

It looks like a win-win for everyone, not just GA.

Yes, you have mentioned costs several times before and perhaps inferred that we deserve nothing more because we want to pay nothing. But have the "vested interests" that established all that Class A considered the extra costs of time and fuel for those who had to avoid airspace? Why should someone be forced to fly low when they could be more fuel efficient and sometimes even safer at higher altitudes?

If airlines only get the bare minimum of separation between themselves with no knowledge of what’s going on in Class G immediately outside the Class A, it’s no wonder why so much disruption occurs when so many who can’t even obtain a crossing service or had a late or nonexistent handover accidentally crosses an airspace boundary.

Feel free to read my earlier post (#1571173) towards the top of this thread on where I see funding might come from.

FMJ,

So if you are going to take issue with that statement.... is that we are liars


I don’t think matspart3 means what you’ve just said though.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571665
Y'know what I think?

I think this would be a much more productive and pleasant place if we all assumed as a matter of course that the other posters' interests align with our own and that have best intentions, at least in general direction of travel.

If we read something that leads us to think about writing derogatory comments including negative phrases like "vested interests" and (especially) "liars", wouldn't it be just great if our first thought then was always "I must have misread the intent there; let me recheck, because there's no way that can be right"?

Rather than bashing on the keyboard in dudgeon and hitting "Submit" and hence souring a worthwhile discussion.

Because in the cold light of day, these forums DO reveal that most of us post with good intentions, and generally all our interests DO align.

People mostly don't lie, and describing a different experience is not an accusation of that.

That's what I think.
#1571668
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
I think they might be referring to the fact that the UK doesn't offer a country wide, radar supported Flight Information Service where issues such as transits can be negotiated for you, where traffic service can be offered, etc. I think the report misses those words in bold.


I already pointed that out at #1571594.
I suggested the adoption of Para 8.11 when the 'new' types of service were being planned by AP6 (Dave Philips' 'old' section at the CAA) in about 2007/8. Unfortunately he had already left the section otherwise I'm sure it would have got a 'hearing' and been discussed, but as it was, nobody else at the workshop seemed to know it even existed so my suggestion was ignored.
I've also pointed out previously on other threads that when the Swanwick operation was being planned way back in the mid '80s, there was provision for 10 'FIR radar' positions which would have supplanted LARS units.
Last edited by chevvron on Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571672
James Chan wrote:FMJ,

So if you are going to take issue with that statement.... is that we are liars


I don’t think matspart3 is implying what you’ve just said though.


He might not be directly stating that but the inference is clearly there. He takes issue because it points out that access to controlled airspace can be restricted to VFR traffic.

He goes further to say that it never happens to him, thus suggesting that because it never happens to him, it never happens full stop. Taken together - i.e. 'taking issue' with the reported refusal of CAS access in the report and compounding this by saying it's never happened to him - what he is effectively saying is that it never happens full stop and those who claim otherwise are ______ <--- please insert your descriptor here.

On other threads I have heard plenty of people saying it doesn't happen. I have also heard people saying 'it's all down to the PIC's RT' - which I find particularly insulting as the person making that statement has no knowledge of my personal standard of RT.

However such generalisations - I always get a transit, or I never get a transit - are worthless. This is why I asked him to accept reports from other pilots that in fact refusals DO happen.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571674
FMJ, I read matspart3's post differently. I think he accepts refusals do happen but not in the manner described by the FASVIG article.
#1571702
We all seem to have our own view of what we want in Class G but we all want to access controlled airspace for transit, or so it seems.

I would argue that the people posting on this forum must represent only a tiny fraction of the total number of pilots. So what we might agree here may well not be representative of pilots as a whole. As an example, we have a number of posts discussing being refused zone transits. Do pilots really worry about zone transits? How can they when there seems to be a huge number that are going to ignore the 8.33 requirement. No 8.33, no zone transits because the big airports will be 8.33 by the end of next year, I will put money on it.

If we want freedom of the skies similar to the USA, then EASA and Eurocontrol was an opportunity that has been missed to harmonise the whole airspace thing. It will not happen.

Now I would be happy to fly around outside of any airspace and not talk to anyone if I had a really up to date panel showing me all (not some, all) the traffic around me and navigating me to keep me clear of infringing a very much smaller amount of controlled airspace. That avoids all the arguments about who pays for a traffic service for light aircraft because we wouldn’t need one.
BEX liked this
#1571709
Look, the UK system is piecemeal and much of that is due to the way the various factions have interacted over the years. Indeed, part of the problem is that (generally) the absolute minimum amount of CAS was established due to the CAA enforcing a process that meant GA/MOD had a voice. Chevvron makes a very good point - in 2002-2005 when I was at the CAA there was a golden opportunity to redefine the airspace environment. SES was high on the agenda and Europe was looking for a catch-all solution to ensure expeditious routings for everyone. We missed that opportunity because of intransigence, from a number of areas. I led the ATSOCAS review which ultimately produced DS, TS and BS sometime after I left. I was so disappointed with the outcome because the thrust had been to devolve to ICAO SARPS (IFR or VFR). Unfortunately, the conservative mentality of many led to a rebranding exercise and not much else.
At the same time we were arguing about mandatory Mode S. John Arscott saw a need for a known environment way before anyone else (probably a good decade or so) and realised that this would free-up the skies. I sat at meetings where GA 'representative organisations' wouldn't even engage on the subject. For sure, Mode S, at that time, wasn't a satisfactory answer but the was no appetite to even agree a long term strategy.

So where are now? CAS which is creaking at the seams (mostly), VFR hot spots, ATC that has a reputation of saying 'No', various flavours of electronic conspicuity many of which are not compatible with each other and an infringement issue that has been partially mitigated by apps such as Sky Demon. The whole thing has evolved in some form of never-ending knee-jerk rather than a long-term, agreed strategy. The FASVIG paper sort of captures all this but it falls short on facts.
AlanM, Full Metal Jackass, GonzoEGLL and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571716
Out of interest, has anywhere in the world moved on from ATC delivered via voice over RT to cleverer and more automated solutions?
In my professional roles in surface transport, autonomous vehicles are already operating in far more complex and less predictable environments than airspace ..... are we trying to fix the problems of essentially a 70 year old methodology, when there's an opportunity to completely redefine the solution?
By matspart3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571718
James Chan wrote:FMJ, I read matspart3's post differently. I think he accepts refusals do happen but not in the manner described by the FASVIG article.


I'm certain they don't happen with the regularity that the paper, or FMJ allude to and I'm certain that more would be approved/available if clear, concise standard RT were used and pilots understood the airspace classifications and types of service available.

As an example of the lack of research in this paper, MATS Part 1 (the ATCO bible) mandates (uses shall, not should) controllers to say 'remain outside CAS...' on first contact if clearance cannot be immediately issued. Every time you hear that, the controller is doing their job, it's not some dark conspiracy. :wall:
johnm liked this
#1571721
rikur_ wrote:Out of interest, has anywhere in the world moved on from ATC delivered via voice over RT to cleverer and more automated solutions?
In my professional roles in surface transport, autonomous vehicles are already operating in far more complex and less predictable environments than airspace ..... are we trying to fix the problems of essentially a 70 year old methodology, when there's an opportunity to completely redefine the solution?


Yes for flights above FL245 and the transatlantic I believe are available for suitable equipped aircraft in digital form were trialled. Not sure of current status as there were initial teething issues.

Many of the U.K. airports deliver an initial pre-departure clearance digitally to cut down on RT workload.

We digress however :)
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571742
Marvin wrote:
We digress however :)

Not entirely - my question was driven by insight into several studies in different sectors (E.g. autonomous vehicles can make much more efficient use of road space/motorways; railways are increasingly looking to different forms of signalling to grow capacity; etc) ....... I know some clever stuff has been done with e.g. continuous descent and time based separation, etc .... but could a step change in how traffic is managed deliver a step change in the amount/nature/shape of airspace required?
#1571747
rikur_ wrote:
Marvin wrote:
We digress however :)

Not entirely - my question was driven by insight into several studies in different sectors (E.g. autonomous vehicles can make much more efficient use of road space/motorways; railways are increasingly looking to different forms of signalling to grow capacity; etc) ....... I know some clever stuff has been done with e.g. continuous descent and time based separation, etc .... but could a step change in how traffic is managed deliver a step change in the amount/nature/shape of airspace required?


Certainly the digital data exchange will provide two way communication between ATC and the Aircraft Systems/Pilots. But the scope allows for better identification of what is happening in the aircraft and therefore confirmation of instructions issued and how these are being implemented.

Continuous descent, and alongside this closer management of speed for managing arrival times reduces the need for holds and therefore how airspace is used, time based separation is related to arrival management and therefore runway operating capacities. There is also a similar departure management initiative as well.

In addition more precise navigation based on GPS and precision DME triangulation, RNAV approaches etc also has an impact as well as future data exchange of more detailed flight information changes the whole gambit of the airspace utilisation and therefore capacity.

Many of these things are at ICAO and EASA level and due to the nature of how these need to be discussed, agreed and implemented at an international and European level and then systems implemented at airline and grounds systems not a quick solution but certainly in the vision. Some of these are already being rolled out others are still waiting for suitable solutions in the air and also on the ground.

Investment in the ground based systems alone is expensive, time consuming and not all airports, or even countries for that matter, can afford it so that while the big boys can adopt early, there remains the need to maintain the exiting solutions until everyone has moved on.

GA is not the only sector that is cost constrained. :-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
GonzoEGLL, rikur_, AlanM liked this
#1571757
Wow, finally read the paper. What a model of clarity and accuracy! Here's hoping that those with power will listen and act promptly to what appear to be very sensible suggestions to bring the UK into line with ICAO.

I notice that the FASVIG office is near where I live, is it a funded organisation or do they need volunteers?
#1571768
I am now confused, I have now read the thread (I wanted to post above before reading past the first post and associated paper) and there appears to be a disconnect between the paper saying that the zones around Britain’s low use airports are much larger than the ICAO standard zones around equivalent airports on mainland Europe yet people here whose experience and opinions I very much respect say that these zones are unable to cope with their commercial traffic. There is no sarcasm or criticism in my question, what have I misunderstood? Is it that the LHR-LGW-LTN-STN airspace (maybe MAN as well?) is full but that the others aren’t. I am genuinely asking to help me understand not moaning or point scoring.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10