Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Expansion of UK controlled airspace

Timothy wrote:

Where is that “bit of controlled airspace”? How does that apply to the rest of the IAP procedure (ie Initial and Intermediate segments)?

This is the problem with these particular rules — and has always been. There is no controlled airspace as such. The rules (SERA and ICAO Annex II both) say that at a controlled airport “aerodrome traffic” is controlled without regard for airspace class. “Aerodrome traffic” is defined as traffic on the manoevering area — which includes the runways — and traffic “flying in the vicinity” of the aerodrome.

What “traffic flying in the vicinity” means is poorly defined. The rules only say that it includes at least entering, flying in, and leaving the traffic circuit. In turn, SERA defines “traffic circuit” as “the specified path to be flown by aircraft operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome” so the definitions are nicely circular.

In the case of the UK, I would simply assume that the extent of the ATZ defines the “vicinity”.

In other words, the meaning of “cleared to land” is obvious as it doesn’t affect airspace at all but only the runway. The exact meaning of “Cleared for the approach” in this case is less obvious but the only reasonable interpretation I can see is that is as a clearance to fly within the ATZ according to the approach procedure.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 26 Nov 10:25
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

We do pay – massive fuel duty and VAT that goes into the general fund more than pays for the services we use.

Yes, but the powers to be don’t see it like that. NATS gets the Eurocontrol-collected route charges but doesn’t get hydrocarbon duties and VAT.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The exact meaning of “Cleared for the approach” in this case is less obvious but the only reasonable interpretation I can see is that is as a clearance to fly within the ATZ according to the approach procedure.

But it is typically ten to fifteen miles outside the ATZ.

Last Edited by Timothy at 26 Nov 10:36
EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy wrote:

But it is typically ten to fifteen miles outside the ATZ.

Which means that the clearance as such is not valid until you enter the ATZ.

Even if it is not UK practise, it is quite possible — and indeed very common in other countries with IFR in class G airspace — to get a route clearance (“Cleared to DESTINATION via ROUTE”) even if the flight is partially uncontrolled. In that case the clearance simply doesn’t apply to the uncontrolled parts of the flight but it applies the instant the flight becomes controlled.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

The rules (SERA and ICAO Annex II both) say that at a controlled airport “aerodrome traffic” is controlled without regard for airspace class

Yes, that’s also my understanding/experience, and it typically extends to the entire TMA from the ground and up, but where in SERA does it say so?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

What other states don’t have is Rule 183.

Either the Approach service in Class G is FIS or ATC.

If it is FIS, it breaches rule 183.

If it is ATC, it breaches Part ATS.

Which is it to be?

EGKB Biggin Hill

183 first

Then CAP493

I think you’re getting mixed up here. UK currently requires an air traffic control unit in order to fly an IAP. Under the ANO this is described as an approach control service. Under CAP493, an approach control service employs UK FIS if given outside of CAS.

ICAO describes the various air traffic services as an Air Traffic Control service ( inside CAS) and Flight Information Service when outside CAS. An approach control service is a different beast to an Air Traffic Control service in that the ANO approach control service is a capability requirement rather than a set of rules.

Last Edited by Dave_Phillips at 26 Nov 14:56
Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

In the case of the UK, I would simply assume that the extent of the ATZ defines the “vicinity”.

For the purpose of Article 183 of the Air Navigation Order, on the mandatory provision of an approach control service, the interpretation given in schedule 1 goes beyond the ATZ.

“Approach control service” means an air traffic control service for any aircraft which is not
receiving an aerodrome control service, which is flying in, or in the vicinity of the aerodrome
traffic zone of the aerodrome for which the service is being provided, whether or not the
aircraft is flying by visual reference to the surface;
London, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

If it is ATC, it breaches Part ATS.

It doesn’t breach the parts you quoted. It might well breach other parts.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Qalupalik wrote:

For the purpose of Article 183 of the Air Navigation Order, on the mandatory provision of an approach control service, the interpretation given in schedule 1 goes beyond the ATZ.

Very well. It’s all a question of what the word “vicinity” in SERA means.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top