Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
#1836920
IMCR wrote:.

I have to say I find it odd that this topic causes such controversy, and with all the usual suspects on here throwing all their toys out. :D I cant help feeling there are a lot more vested interests than we realise at work.



Oh I don't think it is vested interests, it's more likely rule obsession. Compare it to the health and safety officer that insists you wear a hard hat whilst working in the middle of a field with nowt above you but clouds. Or, the one I had, insistence I put a hi-viz waistcoast over a hi-viz jacket, because the sign showed a waistcoast was required.

Guidance of wise men, etc.
#1836998
James Chan wrote:
The French FIS regions are divided into ...


Indeed, you and I and some others here know what the solutions to the issues are.

This could be a great time to consolidate FIS and move forward with airspace redesign off a clean sheet given the lack of air traffic. Otherwise in 9-18 months from now air travel will roar back to life whilst refreshing controllers and pilots with air traffic procedures written from the last century.

And round and round the infringements problem we go again....


I admire and agree with the sentiment but I’m genuinely curious after reading and wondering...

If a clean sheet of paper redesign process was given the go ahead by government tomorrow, what do you think the timescale and budget would be to get to the point where it’s realised? Where day one of operations in the completely revamped airspace can commence with everything promulgated and updated as required and all the various ANSP staff trained and considered competent to operate within the new design and its undoubted plethora of new procedures?

(And if the process is starting tomorrow it would be being done against the backdrop of mounting public debt and ANSPs and airlines significantly reducing staff and costs just to try and stay viable until business improves.)

But even in a best case scenario, as a complete airspace redesign is oft mooted as the solution... what would it take in time and budget to achieve? I have my thoughts, curious what others may think.
#1837004
Just been looking on ADSBExchange and noticed that there are quite a few aircraft of the 152/172/PA28 variety flying around, particularly S/W of London, that show up as ADSB-No TP (No Transponder) which, being cynical, either shows that pilots are possibly turning off their Transponder or ADSBExchange is not showing that they have one?...Interesting...But not good either way!!
#1837008
Mike Tango wrote:
James Chan wrote:
The French FIS regions are divided into ...


Indeed, you and I and some others here know what the solutions to the issues are.

This could be a great time to consolidate FIS and move forward with airspace redesign off a clean sheet given the lack of air traffic. Otherwise in 9-18 months from now air travel will roar back to life whilst refreshing controllers and pilots with air traffic procedures written from the last century.

And round and round the infringements problem we go again....


I admire and agree with the sentiment but I’m genuinely curious after reading and wondering...

If a clean sheet of paper redesign process was given the go ahead by government tomorrow, what do you think the timescale and budget would be to get to the point where it’s realised? Where day one of operations in the completely revamped airspace can commence with everything promulgated and updated as required and all the various ANSP staff trained and considered competent to operate within the new design and its undoubted plethora of new procedures?

(And if the process is starting tomorrow it would be being done against the backdrop of mounting public debt and ANSPs and airlines significantly reducing staff and costs just to try and stay viable until business improves.)

But even in a best case scenario, as a complete airspace redesign is oft mooted as the solution... what would it take in time and budget to achieve? I have my thoughts, curious what others may think.


I think by far far an away the biggest obstacle is NATS.

We are one of the few to have our national airspace effectively in private hands and it is their little fiefdom. I think you willl find even on here someone commented earlier it is NATS that tell the CAA what to do. :D :lol:

The CAA can relieve GASCo of the courses they operate, but I bet they cant relieve NATS anywhere near as easily. :D

(All speculation on my part you understand of course and with no particular axe to grind for those from the NATS camp, just pointing out that as far as national airspace construct goes it is a pretty exceptional arrangement :D ).
#1837009
IMCR wrote:
I think by far far an away the biggest obstacle is NATS.

We are one of the few to have our national airspace effectively in private hands and it is their little fiefdom. I think you willl find even on here someone commented earlier it is NATS that tell the CAA what to do. :D :lol:

The CAA can relieve GASCo of the courses they operate, but I bet they cant relieve NATS anywhere near as easily. :D

(All speculation on my part you understand of course and with no particular axe to grind for those from the NATS camp, just pointing out that as far as national airspace construct goes it is a pretty exceptional arrangement :D ).


NATS of course consists of two (or is it even three or four these days) separate entities. If we’re talking about NATS (En Route) PLC, which operates under licence, then airspace modernisation requirements are covered under said licence and are essentially set out by DfT and CAA. So if they tell NATS (En Route) PLC to get on with it via the appropriate processes...

But I was more interested in what anyone thought of timescales and budgets for the change rather than imaginary obstacles.
#1837016
Shoestring Flyer wrote:[A/C] that show up as ADSB-No TP (No Transponder) which, being cynical, either shows that pilots are possibly turning off their Transponder or ADSBExchange is not showing that they have one?


Those are aircraft with SkyEcho.
I would guess that for a/c with SkyEcho and Mode S, the MLAT position (which is less precise) is discarded and only the SkyEcho appear.
Aircarft with a mode A/C transponder and SkyEcho wouldn't have shown before and ADSBExchange only have the SkyEcho to rely on.
#1837021
Mike Tango and do you dont think there would be extensive consultation with NATS ( and rightly so ) and NATS would resist any changes and especially changes to their cost base if they only served to assist GA?
#1837048
xtophe wrote:
Shoestring Flyer wrote:[A/C] that show up as ADSB-No TP (No Transponder) which, being cynical, either shows that pilots are possibly turning off their Transponder or ADSBExchange is not showing that they have one?


Those are aircraft with SkyEcho.
I would guess that for a/c with SkyEcho and Mode S, the MLAT position (which is less precise) is discarded and only the SkyEcho appear.
Aircarft with a mode A/C transponder and SkyEcho wouldn't have shown before and ADSBExchange only have the SkyEcho to rely on.


Maybe...Not totally convinced though because in the main it seems to be Flying School type aircraft 152/172/Pa28's that are showing ADSB-No TP.
I could be wrong but I am not sure that many school aircraft have SE2?
#1837049
IMCR wrote:Mike Tango and do you dont think there would be extensive consultation with NATS ( and rightly so ) and NATS would resist any changes and especially changes to their cost base if they only served to assist GA?


The general aviation community has representation on the Airspace Change Organising Group that the licensee is required to maintain, so maybe ask them that question or for their opinion to date?

But a clean piece of paper redesign would ultimately benefit everyone, the ANSP themselves and all the airspace users.

So, back to the original question...
#1837066
Mike Tango - I was aware. I think you misunderstand my point.

My point is that changes to the airspace and its control has been talked about for years.

Nothing has happened.

Cynicism aside, I also doubt at the level of current infringements in itself this is sufficient motivation. While changes in airspace would clearly have some benefits, personally I suspect all the time there is CAS, there will be infringements. It is the nature of the beast, short of making the whole airpsace a known enviroment which is also clearly not going to happen.

My point is that therefore this is all wishful thinking, and I suspect we arent a million miles apart. I was more interested to see if you seriously thought changes might come to pass that would have a materially impact on infringements, or that such changes are likely, or you were just be provocative, of which there has been a lot in this discussion.

My point has always been a better response to infringements would be helpful than we curretnly have, and might actually half the numbers over a period of time. In parallel any changes to airspace construct and control that would also help is to be welcome, except I am not holding my breath.
#1837077
I haven’t misunderstood your point and I’m not being provocative.

I was just curious when I saw the suggestion of a clean sheet of paper and then 9-18 months later the suggestion of some significant change.

It may be hypothetical but airspace modernisation is happening and will continue to happen, albeit after this last year likely somewhat slower than originally envisioned. So, because of the timescale hypothesised above, I wondered if there was any appreciation of the enormity of the task of even a relatively minor change never mind a clean sheet?

Take the recent Farnborough change. There would obviously be many hours of meetings and the like to design and agree proposed changes, consultations, revisions etc etc etc... all office based. But in addition there’s also numerous hours in the air traffic simulator testing proposed procedures, making the changes, then retesting etc etc. For the Farnborough simulations it’s not just Farnborough staff required but also adjacent units... so enough bodies to man the relevant positions from London and Heathrow at a minimum and without impacting unduly the live operation. A significant logistical exercise getting everything and everyone in place as required over a prolonged period.

Then, once the final design is agreed and approved the controller training plan needs to begin, which will likely include CBT, classroom and simulator time over a number of hours, days, weeks, months depending on scale of change. Again also involving the adjacent units as well.

The London Olympic airspace took a number of years, a clean sheet of paper for the whole country?

So, again, not being provocative. Was just curious if there was an appreciation of what’s involved in any airspace change behind the scenes. From what one sometimes reads there may be a little more than is often thought, is all.

Airspace change is very much needed for a number of reasons, as is an appreciation of the cost and the task.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837086
A clean sheet of paper might well be cheaper and easier for all concerned, but that requires that all airspace is controlled and allocated by one specialist body. That won't happen for a lifetime, so modernisation will merely be a variation on the dog's breakfast menu.....
#1837101
Mike Tango - thank you for the very informative reply.

I do appreciate the complexity of making changes which is why I think they will be some time in the making.

As I have said I am also less than convinced they will significantly reduce the number of infringements, but of course I am more than happy to proved wrong.

In the meantime .. .. ..
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1837103
Mike Tango wrote:Take the recent Farnborough change. There would obviously be many hours of meetings and the like to design and agree proposed changes, consultations, revisions etc etc etc... all office based. But in addition there’s also numerous hours in the air traffic simulator testing proposed procedures...

I can certainly see that it would have taken an enormous amount of time and effort from a large number of people to come up with the recent proposed Brize changes.
flybymike liked this
  • 1
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54