[JodelDavo]

North Weald aerodrome; not licensed, no ATZ, AGCS radio and some thousands of movements a year.

I concur your honour and call exhibit B, Popham

[JodelDavo]

From a private pilots point of view, I think a ATZ can removed and replaced with RMZ or CTR.

Let's not go suggesting things like the CTR route for small GA aerodromes shall we? You never know who's listening

[James Chan]

But if it's the same size then it shouldn't matter as much?

Existing towered fields get a Class D CTR and existing AFIS and AGCS fields get a RMZ in Class G or E?

[tomshep]

No.

[James Chan]

How come?

[Dusty_B]

But if it's the same size then it shouldn't matter as much?

Existing towered fields get a Class D CTR and existing AFIS and AGCS fields get a RMZ in Class G or E?

It does matter very much: IFR separation could not be achieved with a 2nm/2000’ CTR.

[tomshep]

AGCS fields might wish to be open to (HORROR OF HORRORS,) non radio aircraft.

[Squadgy]

I’m pretty sure this policy is like for like with the previous version from Feb 16, which was here :
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... il&id=7220


Sandown have applied for an ATZ to become effective during this year by submitting an ACP:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Sta ... rfield.pdf

There is no mention of whether they will be providing AFIS or ATC in order to comply with the CAA policy., or whether the ACP was submitted without that being considered and will therefore be rejected.

[chevvron]

But if it's the same size then it shouldn't matter as much?

Existing towered fields get a Class D CTR and existing AFIS and AGCS fields get a RMZ in Class G or E?

You're trying to convert the UK system to the American system again.

Why have anything other than a Class 'G' ATZ because an aircraft transitting an ATZ has to
follow rules which effectively make that airspace almost the same as Class 'D'.

I'll now resurrect my 'old' idea; any airfield whether civil or military and having a CAA or MAA approved iap published in the relevant AIP should be given an ATZ 5nm radius up to 3,000ft above airfield elevation thus providing 'protection' for its own IFR traffic and also getting rid of the stupid anomoly of the MATZ (as it's only applicable to military aircraft it can be consigned to the bin). Establishment of Class D CTRs instead would require CTAs linking the CTRs with the national airways system, whereas with this idea, the airspace would remain Class G.
VFR only airfields (civil and military) to continue with the present ATZ system and the regulations for ATZ transits in all cases to remain as nowadays.
This would then provide MNC for MPE. (Minimum Necessary Change for Maximum Possible Effect if you read science fiction)

[Talkdownman]

if you read science fiction

It would appear that I am...

I think unlicensed aerodromes with unregulated airspace and no air traffic service (such as Sandown and Popham) being so popular speaks volumes.

[James Chan]

AGCS fields might wish to be open to (HORROR OF HORRORS,) non radio aircraft.

True, but like any field that has a CTR or RMZ, you can telephone them if you wish to land non-radio as well. See Southend and Hawarden AIP entries as an example.

being so popular speaks volumes.

Yes, until someone you know dies. I'm not saying Sandown/Popham etc. are dangerous. I've flown into many airfields with no ATSU too! Operators need to upgrade when appropriate, and similarly downgrade when appropriate too.

[James Chan]

IFR separation could not be achieved with a 2nm/2000’ CTR.

Will adding a slightly larger Class E CTA with MATZ dimensions work then?

[chevvron]

IFR separation could not be achieved with a 2nm/2000’ CTR.

Will adding a slightly larger Class E CTA with MATZ dimensions work then?

No because effectively, VFR traffic does not need permission to transit Class E airspace, whereas if the airspace operated under ATZ rules and was surrounded by Class E, it would have to obtain permission.