Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
#1571142
Delivering a Sustainable Future for VFR Operations

Part of the UK Airspace Modernisation Programme, this document sets out a plan for sustainable VFR operations in a modernised UKFIR and forms the basis for the FASVIG programme of work 2018/19. Developed from earlier work to understand the causes of airspace infringement, the document examines why other European states do not appear to suffer the volume of infringements occurring in the UK FIR. It describes examples of the structural and operational differences between the segregated UK airspace model and the integrated model found elsewhere, and proposes change. Structural and procedural building blocks that make up an integrated model are reviewed for their potential to reduce infringement risk and to deliver increased operational efficiency for VFR traffic for the benefit of the whole UK aviation sector.

The document identifies inefficiencies and conflicts in priority in airspace policy, design and implementation, but it also proposes evidence-based change through utilising the accuracy of RNAV to increase VFR-accessible airspace. This would encourage low-level free-routing using electronic conspicuity to reduce the need to interact with ATS, so releasing resources for commercial operations and reducing infringements. The programme seeks to deliver policies to be implemented by the beginning of Reference Period 3 in 2020. This can only be achieved with the active participation of the CAA, with alignment to the FASIIG programme, and with support from the commercial air transport sector.

Download the paper here:

http://fasvig.org/reports/uk-airspace-modernisation
Derryn, T67M, James Chan liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571147
This is a good paper which summarises the many perceived issues as viewed from the cockpit of a private pilot.

These problems have been highlighted before over the last decade or so but unfortunately nobody has much incentive to address resolve them.

I do hope the problems highlighted by this document will be addressed by the relevant parties going forward to stop ourselves running round in circles again.

:thumleft:
Thumper liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571150
PS. I'm 100% in with transitioning towards an integrated model.
#1571157
I probably won't be popular, but how much would it actually cost to properly resource flight following at LATCC, they have the data, staffing it properly would not cost a huge amount. £10 per aircraft per year at CofA/ Permit renewal would go a very long way.....
#1571167
Peter Gristwood wrote:Interesting document.

Makes it clear that what is holding things back is inertia from CAA and others (they like what they've got and want to hold on to it) and that GA has little ability to affect.

More power to FASVIG's elbow


It is a very conservative industry which has a very proud safety record. Making changes to the system, and I have been involved in quite a few, is a lengthy and costly process. Even a change to a SID or STAR has knock on effects to multiple systems including aircraft system and published information. Factor in the need to add training of ATC in new procedures etc then you can see why the “if it ain’t broke why fix it model”being attractive.

Not an excuse or even my intent on critizising but needs to be considered when words like inertia are being mentioned.
Flyin'Dutch', Ben K, Hawkwind and 1 others liked this
#1571170
what an excellent document
hats off to the author(s) and FASVIG

it also a damning document in that it points out so many ways in which airspace is mis-managed and directives are ignored
I only hope the proposals carry a lot of weight and actually get to see the light of day
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571173
if it ain’t broke why fix it


What is clearly broken however is the level of infringements partically caused by the disjointed set up of ATS.

So where might the funds come from?

A theoretical levy of 50p on the price of all passenger tickets for flights departing and arriving in the UK could raise up to £15m per year.

As a passenger on a commercial flight, this amount is nothing compared to the price I pay of a full ticket, knowing I ultimately benefit from reduced unknowns caused by infringers affecting my flight path, and the fuel saved will reduce the overall cost of my ticket.

As a general aviation pilot, I also benefit from reduced unknowns of big jets affecting my flight path, and save fuel and improve safety by working with ATC to route me through a complex mesh of other flight paths, instead of being asked to keep clear of an equally complex mesh of airspace, even when there is no traffic inside.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571181
The other thing that is broken in my opinion is that segregated airspace configuration cannot expand further without one group of users (say IFR-CAT) upsetting the other (say VFR-GA).

“More Class A grabs again? No way!”

These volumes cannot adjust easily to the growth and needs of various users.

Therefore an integrated approach in my opinion is the way forward.
#1571200
malcolmfrost wrote:I probably won't be popular, but how much would it actually cost to properly resource flight following at LATCC, they have the data, staffing it properly would not cost a huge amount. £10 per aircraft per year at CofA/ Permit renewal would go a very long way.....


Well, it all depends on how many controller positions you want.

4 positions? So 6 controllers in the building, so 8 per watch to allow for leave, and non-op duties, x 3 watches working 6 on 3 off = 24 ATCOs at a cost of maybe 100k to the company each, so that’s £2.4m a year for ATCOs for a 4 position operation.

Make 3 of those Watch Managers and you’re adding another 3x£50k at least.

You might want to add one assistant position, so let’s pitch low and had 6 ATSAs at £50k cost per year

Total staffing cost = £2.4m + 150k + 300k = £2.85m a year.

That’s without the equipment/infrastructure costs, and of course all of this is without considering the fact that the UK, along with most (all?) countries in the world, is very short of ATCOs, so there’s the opportunity cost of using up training slots that could go in to the existing operation.

Obviously I have no real idea of the cost, but I can’t see it being less than those figures. The costs very soon add up.
AlanM liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571204
malcolmfrost wrote:I probably won't be popular, but how much would it actually cost to properly resource flight following at LATCC, they have the data, staffing it properly would not cost a huge amount. £10 per aircraft per year at CofA/ Permit renewal would go a very long way.....


It would be way more than that and could only realistically be funded from general taxation/air navigation charges.

For that there is no appetite and GA funding it will not happen as long as people moan about paying a tenner landing fee/money for a transponder/radio etc.

:D

IN addition to that the time to have flight following developed under the heading of flight safety is now behind us as we are on the brink of universal low cost (to 'the system') traffic avoidance/weather capability which together with the excellent planning and navigation software really means that the added value of someone following/'controlling' VFR open FIR/Class G traffic is small.

If the flight safety was perceived by the powers that are they would be better off buying an ADS-B transmitter/receiver for everyone and get the problem solved for a fraction of the cost - mind you there would still be people moaning at getting them for free if the quid pro quo was that they had to stick it in their flying jalopy!

:D
Marvin, rikur_, TheLodger liked this
#1571221
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:...as we are on the brink of universal low cost (to 'the system') traffic avoidance/weather capability which together with the excellent planning and navigation software really means that the added value of someone following/'controlling' VFR open FIR/Class G traffic is small.


Reading through the excellent report, I believe it's suggesting flight following to be a more efficient approach not because of any need to control G traffic or actively monitor VFR traffic/provide traffic advisories, but rather because of a decrease in RTF congestion. Rather than talking to each individual unit for a basic service (a struggle on some weekends in busy areas), flight following would mean that because a flight becomes a known quantity it can simply be handed to each unit in turn with a simple "XYZ Radar, GABCD" rather than having to transmit the full life story every time. This would also make it easier for controllers to then clear VFR traffic through controlled airspace without blocking the frequency for CT.
#1571229
This is a lucid, easily understood and well researched document full of worthwhile and cost effective suggestions to improve flight safety and regenerate private flying without detriment to CAT.


It is far too good and sensible to have any chance of success because FASVIG are dealing with British management who are too lazy and change averse to do anything at all so the whole exercise will have been a waste of time.

Would that it were not so.
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1571260
Perhaps I'm a pessimist - but this appears to need money to fix - both the cost of change, and the cost of providing the integrated service thereafter.
It's difficult to see that either side of the political spectrum would commit state money to this:
The blues will say leave it to market forces, and the market forces of commercial aviation will speak loudest.
It's difficult to think that the reds will fund a change that would largely be perceived as 'rich boys toys'.
A levy on commercial passengers for this purpose would be a political non-starter for either side.
Therefore it takes us back to needing to demonstrate that changes deliver greater benefits than the cost of implementing.
I guess cost savings could arise from reduced costs of disruption associated with infringements (albeit blunter remedies might be pursued with less implementation cost)
I'm guessing there already good estimates on the costs of infringements - but I couldn't find them. I could find that there are around 200 infringements per annum attributed to GA. What average impact does each cause? 50 delay minutes? £100 per minute? £5k? x 200 = £1m per year? Seems to fall someway short of the costs suggested by Gonzo above.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10