Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
#1893101
Sooty25 wrote:I really don't like the way that all reads.


What is it that you don’t like?

ATZs replaced by an RMZ and available to all busy GA airfields whether licensed or not.
Basic, Traffic and Deconfliction Services replaced by FIS with and without surveillance.
FIR enhanced with surveillance
Joined up ATC services that receive and share your flight plan information (whether voluntarily submitted or provided in flight).
Wide area FIS-B services in lieu of VOLMET/D-VOLMET.
More switchable airspace volumes such as runway dependent CTAs.
BVLOS integration rather than segregation with minimal impact on other ops.
A defined and published EC policy giving clear direction how interoperability between users and ground services is to be achieved.
Electronic obstruction beacons tactically notifying and warning of activities such as hang gliding/paragliding ops, large model sites and winch launching activities.

Just some of the proposals mentioned and apparently what a percentage of GA have been asking for, for some time?
Rob P, James Chan, JustinC79 liked this
#1893107
@Cub I just envisage that by the time this reaches legislation, the words "will typically" and "can", will be substituted with "shall".

The spur of the moment Thursday evening bimble suddenly needing filed flight plans. Heaven forbid you want to take a mate along, by the time you've done this and filled in the 72 page cost sharing declaration, it's dark!

Oh, and
Once airborne, the activation and correlation of the planned intention of flight data will typically be achieved via the association with the flight identification field transmitted from the airframe.


Which system are we transmitting on, anyone decided yet?

Too much use of the word surveillance for my liking.
flybymike liked this
#1893109
Sooty25 wrote:The spur of the moment Thursday evening bimble suddenly needing filed flight plans.


Hmmm.

Route: Tibenham > 50 mile radius > Tibenham

If that was part of the system I would have no difficulty SkyDemon filing a flight plan for me, in exchange for the other benefits

Rob P
#1893110
Rob P wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:The spur of the moment Thursday evening bimble suddenly needing filed flight plans.


Hmmm.

Route: Tibenham > 50 mile radius > Tibenham

If that was part of the system I would have no difficulty SkyDemon filing a flight plan for me, in exchange for the other benefits

Rob P


I believe that is exactly the concept Rob.
Rob P liked this
#1893114
Rob P wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:The spur of the moment Thursday evening bimble suddenly needing filed flight plans.


Hmmm.

Route: Tibenham > 50 mile radius > Tibenham

If that was part of the system I would have no difficulty SkyDemon filing a flight plan for me, in exchange for the other benefits

Rob P


Provided it can be automated to a degree :thumleft: It's not beyond the wit of man. But we'll see.

@Sooty25 I did pick up on the use of the word "surveillance" also. Although I am a bit primed to think of the word in a negative light especially - Rather than say just being "visible".
Sooty25, flybymike liked this
#1893119
Cub wrote:FIR enhanced with surveillance
Joined up ATC services that receive and share your flight plan information (whether voluntarily submitted or provided in flight).

That's good indeed. But at what price?
As you say that has been asked by (some of) Ga for a while. The answer is always that the funding model in the UK is different to the one in e.g. USA or France and there is no money for it in the UK. Where the money is going to come from? Is there going to be a new tax? For everybody or only pilot using FIS? Will transiting controlled airspace be possible for pilots not paying the tax?

A defined and published EC policy giving clear direction how interoperability between users and ground services is to be achieved.

That's good again. But I wish they went further and were consistent. There is plenty of mention of TMZ. We should go a step further and use EC mandatory zone.
#1893121
and there is no money for it in the UK.


There will be money. It should be in the interests of the majority of the public and the travelling public that airspace is managed and serviced sufficiently well to maintain safety whilst helping reduce emissions at the same time.

The rest of the world can manage so I don't see why we should not.
JustinC79 liked this
#1893125
My guess is the primary source of funding would be from airline passengers. Most would have no objections to an additional 10-25p levy per ticket to modernise airspace, provide them with a better known traffic environment, reduce their own flight times (and emissions), and avoid delays to themselves from infringements/disjointed ATC and so on where such inefficiencies add up to many tens of pounds per ticket alone.

This levy alone could raise millions of £ per year due to the sheer volume of passengers ever year.
Last edited by James Chan on Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1893126
StratoTramp wrote: I did pick up on the use of the word "surveillance" also. Although I am a bit primed to think of the word in a negative light especially - Rather than say just being "visible".


I think the word 'surveillance' is used because of the perpetuation of non-radar-based 'cooperative surveillance' methods such as FLARM, PilotAware & ADS-B etc. Cooperative surveillance using ADS-B was enabled as an enhancement to FIS provision by FISOs last month and cooperative surveillance in various forms will undoubtedly be an enabler for many of the other proposed concepts.
StratoTramp liked this
#1893131
James Chan wrote:My guess is the primary source of funding would be from airline passengers. Most would have no objections to an additional 10-25p levy per ticket to modernise airspace, provide them with a better known traffic environment, reduce their own flight times (and emissions), and avoid delays to themselves from infringements/disjointed ATC and so on where such inefficiencies add up to many tens of pounds per ticket alone.

This levy alone could raise millions of £ per year due to the sheer volume of passengers ever year.


I do sometimes think this about car fuel prices, few pence on the bill adds up when it's x 30m. Even as a low tax advocate.
Last edited by StratoTramp on Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1893150
StratoTramp wrote:
James Chan wrote:My guess is the primary source of funding would be from airline passengers. Most would have no objections to an additional 10-25p levy per ticket to modernise airspace, provide them with a better known traffic environment, reduce their own flight times (and emissions), and avoid delays to themselves from infringements/disjointed ATC and so on where such inefficiencies add up to many tens of pounds per ticket alone.

This levy alone could raise millions of £ per year due to the sheer volume of passengers ever year.


I do sometimes thing this about car fuel prices, few pence on the bill adds up when it's x 30m. Even as a low tax advocate.


which would be fine if the targeted taxes raised, were ring-fenced for that particular subject ,rather than disappear into treasury coffers and spent on other unrelated stuff.
StratoTramp liked this
#1893154
Cub wrote:
Rob P wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:The spur of the moment Thursday evening bimble suddenly needing filed flight plans.


Hmmm.

Route: Tibenham > 50 mile radius > Tibenham

If that was part of the system I would have no difficulty SkyDemon filing a flight plan for me, in exchange for the other benefits

Rob P


I believe that is exactly the concept Rob.


that is exactly the point, I don't think any of us who supported a review of cost sharing flights in order to tackle grey charters, believed it would result in a proposal that questioned the legality of running your mate somewhere to collect his aeroplane, or believed we'd be presented with the prospect of forms to complete just to take your oldest mate for a flight over his house!

As they say "assumption is the mother of all **** ups!"
flybymike liked this
#1893202
Basic, Traffic and Deconfliction Services replaced by FIS with and without surveillance.
Paid for by whom ? Given the diverse ANSPs around the country, many of which part of the airport operating company, why should they staff and kit up to provide a service to traffic that provides no revenue to their business ? At least, that is what a finance manager is likely to ask. Who is going to make ANSPs' participation worthwhile ?
Joined up ATC services that receive and share your flight plan information (whether voluntarily submitted or provided in flight).
Again, who will pay for this ? There would be a need to replicate the system in place for IFR FPL management, plus an enhanced inter-unit telephone network for coordination....remember Mediator ?
More switchable airspace volumes such as runway dependent CTAs.
Nice in theory, but how do ANSPs inform traffic in the area that they are flip-flopping runways, and so the CAS boundaries have just shifted ? Presumably there will have to be RMZs with mandatory listening as buffer zones around CTA/CTR. That will please the non-radio lobby....

Also, best of luck with asking the general taxpayer or airline passengers to subsidise enhanced services for flights that are not airliners taking them on holiday, and are frequently discretionary minority recreational activities.
kanga, flybymike, callump liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8