Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1670204
It’s been said before, but all the awkward little fillets and changes of level and the like are mostly there to keep the amount of airspace that is made controlled to a minimum. This at the request or insistence of the bodies that represent those who generally do not wish there to be, or want to use, controlled airspace.

Airspace can certainly be made simpler, although it will almost certainly be of a greater volume.

Nowadays airspace change is a far from simple process.


EddieHeli wrote:It was no surprise to see that the places with most infringements are the ones with the airspace designed to make it tricky to navigate at low (average vfr) level.
Whilst I am not making excuses for poor airmanship, why not try and help the situation by redesigning the airspace that keeps getting infringed i.e. the ridiculous different height triangular fillets around Southampton from Popham to Bournemouth along the western edge of Southampton airspace for example, why is that triangle down to 1500ft?.
If there were consistent accidents at a road junction it would get redesigned. Why do we seem to be stuck in the situation where we have to put up with airspace that was probably designed on parchment with a quill pen , except of course when someone (i.e. Farnborough!!!) wants to grab some more of it, That seems to be the only time it gets re-designed.
Even then if you look at the planned Farnborough grab, they don't seem to have taken the opportunity to rethink and redesign as it is still full of fillets of different heights.
I think it needs work on both sides, I agree that pilots who don't bother planning properly need to be re-educated, but why make flying more difficult than it already is for those that do, with poorly designed airspace.
#1670230
Because if that silly little 1500' triangle was not there, it would be class D from surface to 2000' and the maintenance facility at Farley Farm would not be operational and neither would the airstrip. Far more importantly (to me,) my aircraft is based there so I am grateful for its presence.
#1670246
If it we’re Class D to ground level that wouldn’t preclude Farley Farm from operating, it would just require a pretty straightforward Letter of Agreement with Southampton ATC.

Take a look at places like Rush Green, right under the Luton final approach circa 4nm...

tomshep wrote:Because if that silly little 1500' triangle was not there, it would be class D from surface to 2000' and the maintenance facility at Farley Farm would not be operational and neither would the airstrip. Far more importantly (to me,) my aircraft is based there so I am grateful for its presence.
James Chan liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1670499
What purpose for the controlled traffic does that 1500 ft triangle have?


Probably none. Only there because some non-radio technophobes in the 90's, for reasons best known to themselves, could only accept the minimum amount of controlled airspace so they could squeeze underneath it all with a stopwatch, map and compass, and annoy others when they infringe. :twisted:
Last edited by James Chan on Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1670506
James Chan wrote:
What purpose for the controlled traffic does that 1500 ft triangle have?


Probably none. Only there because some non-radio technophobes in the 90's, for reasons best known to themselves, could only accept the minimum amount of controlled airspace so they could squeeze underneath it all with a stopwatch, map and compass, and annoy others when they infringe. :twisted:

And together calling themselves something you have heard of.... ?
User avatar
By EddieHeli
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1670552
My point about that fillet is not why its there but why is the base set at 1500ft not 2000ft in alignment wit the piece to the north. It is the step down from 2000ft to 1500ft then back up to 2500ft in the space of a couple of miles, which can catch people out and I can't see any traffic pattern for Southampton that would put any controlled traffic that low in that area that would require a 1500ft base rather than 2000ft.
#1670556
Irv Lee wrote:
James Chan wrote:
What purpose for the controlled traffic does that 1500 ft triangle have?


Probably none. Only there because some non-radio technophobes in the 90's, for reasons best known to themselves, could only accept the minimum amount of controlled airspace so they could squeeze underneath it all with a stopwatch, map and compass, and annoy others when they infringe. :twisted:

And together calling themselves something you have heard of.... ?

Are you both really saying this piece of controlled airspace has no use for the controlled traffic?

If that's the case why did the authorities put it there? To trap the unwary?
#1670563
James Chan wrote:
What purpose for the controlled traffic does that 1500 ft triangle have?


Probably none. Only there because some non-radio technophobes in the 90's, for reasons best known to themselves, could only accept the minimum amount of controlled airspace so they could squeeze underneath it all with a stopwatch, map and compass, and annoy others when they infringe. :twisted:


Or, vintage aircraft without all the bells and whistles coming in to be mended and PFA aircraft coming in for permit inspections as would have been the case thirty years ago James but I am sure that you had considered that possibility before dissing those who don't follow your world view.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1671217
And together calling themselves something you have heard of...


Ha! Interestingly enough, I never met those people during the many meetings I've had over the years. Perhaps they had long retired before I joined.

If I were involved in discussions about airspace, the common goal would be to make sure GA had fair and reasonable access to it, and not to over-complicate boundaries due to the infringement risk. We were all on the same page.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1674895
Mike Tango wrote:Ask them!


Someone did, on Monday night, at the talk they gave to the Andover Strut.

EddieHeli wrote:My point about that fillet is not why its there but why is the base set at 1500ft not 2000ft in alignment wit the piece to the north.


It's further along the approach path for 20 than the 2000ft bit to the north with aircraft descending. It's a bit like the Waltham ATZ being split in two with 2500ft on the one side, 1500ft on the other side, the bit which resides "within" the CTR. This triangle resides within the CTR but is cut out for the airfield below, and there was some suggestion it was something to do with an approach to Middle Wallop, but no one seemed to know for certain.
Mike Tango liked this