Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
then we can do away with most ground based ATC

I think the busier airports will say no to that.

Even with all traffic info on board, we still won’t be able to all self organise and expect the airport’s runway to be optimised without ATC. It would be radio chaos. With someone controlling, it means more fees collected per hour to them and less wasted flight time and fuel spent for us.

That said I think they should still allow uncontrolled movements with restrictions when ATC isn’t around, and not do a Cranfield.
Last edited by James Chan on Sun May 12, 2019 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Waveflyer, kanga liked this
matspart3 wrote:80 000 runway movements, 6000 IAPs and 10 000 ‘known’ transits might have something to do with it :roll:

matspart3, whilst rolling his eyes, hasn't read my question properly either (I won't roll my eyes in return...). My question has nothing to do with Gloucester. It was "why do we need (AT)Control outside controlled airspace". Do members of the Forum not think that air traffic control should only be within controlled airspace? Surely the two go hand-in-glove? (Note the two 'control' words, not difficult) Yet in the UK we have this disconcerting situation with aerodromes with such high movements without any form of CAS protection, just a Mickey Mouse Rule 11 ATZ where you only need permission, and not even a 'clearance', yet equipped with 'air traffic control', mandated or otherwise. Is there no-one else here that thinks that such lack of protection is somewhat irresponsible? I'm sure that matspart3 has been frustrated on occasions whilst attempting to provide SRAs outside CAS. EASA in its infinite wisdom has apparently somewhere (I can't recall where right now) announced that in the near future (2020?) radar vectors will not be permitted outside controlled airspace (except in an emergency). That's the thin end of the wedge which will put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Do members of the Forum not think that air traffic control should only be within controlled airspace

Of course.

Bring on a little more Class D for Gloucester that looks a bit like a MATZ and surround that with a much larger bit of Class E that joins that with the ATS route system.

EASA’s ruling makes sense.
kanga liked this
bilko2 wrote:IMHO the sooner we sort out Skyecho etc the better. Maybe then we can do away with most ground based ATC

Coupled with tasty RNAV approaches to every farm strip in the land.
Yep, I'm game....

Peter :wink:
Found the reference, thanks to Gonzo:

GonzoEGLL wrote:Part-ATS ATS.TR.200 and associated definitions.

Basically, Air Traffic Control service is only available inside CAS.

ATC at Aerodrome = CAS.

No ATC service outside of CAS, only ‘ICAO’ FIS (BS/TS, not DS).

No vectoring outside of CAS unless in an emergency or for immediate safety reasons. Vectoring on to instrument approach procedure is not considered as such.

Lots of comments in the CRD on this, but EASA basically say the UK has got to 2025 to get their poop in a pile on this, and EASA will facilitate consultation workshops in order to assist transition.

Estimated 59 new CTRs (civ and mil) in UK, plus all the extra CAS needed to join them up to airways, assuming some form of vectoring/ATC is required throughout flights

Control only within controlled airspace makes sense to me, then we will all know exactly where we stand. Maybe when Gloucester gets enough ATCOs it ought to also get itself some CAS to protect its large number of movements.
James Chan liked this
lobstaboy wrote:
Why do we need ATC at all then? I mean, either it's needed or it isn't at any particular time and place.

Why do we need (AT)Control outside controlled airspace...

Apologies TDMan. I was answering Lobsby's original question not your supplemental. Sorry.
I have over the years encountered several incidents of my own, caused by pilots cherry picking instructions from ATC as well as blocking the approach path.
User avatar
By bilko2
It seems to me that with the coming of mass market autonomous flying vehicles (and they are coming, not this year but soon) the old ways won't cut it. Control will have to be some sort of decentralised algorithm based system, maybe supervised by a few humans (to start with anyway).

Repeating back instructions on 1940s tech VHF radios will not be good enough. Seems a bit antiquated now.
User avatar
By kanga
bilko2 wrote:.. 1940s tech VHF radios will not be good enough. Seems a bit antiquated now.

modern compared to Morse on HF and Aldis .. :)

[I'd previously here suggested a preference for renaming Staverton as Cheltenham Gustav Holst, to emulate but trump Liverpool John Lennon :wink: ]