If one always wants to keep IFR in a controlled environment, then one will always have huge swathes of class A, C or D airspace. The UK does have airports where airline traffic transitions through uncontrolled airspace (Exeter for example), but they hate that, too and would like to change this, as we see from all the ACPs in the UK.
Some countries „solve“ the problem by using class E airspace, but while that is OK for VFR traffic, it still does not solve the potential collision risk between VFR and IFR (which is what certain airspace planners think is the most important thing).
The ultimate solution will only come once all air traffic has ADSB in and out (and then airlines will still complain about having to deviate around other traffic too often; they will only be be happy once all the VFR traffic is moved out of their way).
Indeed, a big aspect is always how easy the access to these controlled airspaces is made for VFR traffic. Requiring prefiled flightplans to cross through or land at places like Sligo is a joke, of course, and will keep most of the VFR flyers out (which is what some people might want to achieve). Poland also does not allow abbreviated flightplans, by the way. And a few other counties seem to do the same. Complain to EASA? Good luck. At most, EASA might issue a „finding“ and that would be it.
Ireland does not seem to have ANY GA pilot representation. I therefore see no way how this can go into a good direction for Irish (VFR) GA.
boscomantico wrote:
Some countries „solve“ the problem by using class E airspace, but while that is OK for VFR traffic, it still does not solve the potential collision risk between VFR and IFR (which is what certain airspace planners think is the most important thing).The ultimate solution will only come once all air traffic has ADSB in and out (and then airlines will still complain about having to deviate around other traffic too often).
Obviously Class E works fine in practice. Even if you accept that airliner crews (and perhaps to a lesser extent biz jet crews) aren’t particularly trustworthy in terms of see and avoid in VMC, ADS-B OUT is helpful but not completely necessary if ground stations, TCAS etc provide in-cockpit traffic info on Mode C equipped planes in terminal areas where there is significant VFR traffic. In the US this is only a short portion of a jet’s trip given that Class A starts at 18,000 feet and their airports may be Class D or higher, having modestly sized but tower controlled airspace.
Local to my US area, most of the traffic in Class E is GA and is concerned with the need to deviate for airliners, based on their creation of wake turbulence as they transition between Class A and Class B, C or D airspace. Airliners are a minority and surely have a regulated right to make money in public airspace, but they do not have regulatory priority based on their commercial interest. Its helpful to everybody else if ATC keeps them on predictable tracks as they transition through Class E, which in fairness is mostly the case in the areas where I fly. And that works OK with a little accommodation by all.
What I find interesting in reading views on airspace management is the acceptance by some that VFR aircraft should be routinely in contact with ATC for their entire flight. I would find that really obnoxious if it were the case, certainty would not fly if it were true for me, and I’m sure that’s equally so for almost anybody I know operating here in some of the busiest airspace worldwide.
But as we have often said, one can‘t compare air traffic in the US and Europe. Europe has a much higher diversity, lots more gliders, trikes, balloons, microlights, etc. Much less Cessna type GA in the mix. And very little IFR GA below the turboprop segment. Also, no ADSB mandate.
boscomantico wrote:
Ireland does not seem to have ANY GA pilot representation. I therefore see no way how this can go into a good direction for Irish (VFR) GA.
I agree. AOPA Ireland came apart at the seams over 20 years ago. I was there for the last meeting, but I was only a teenager and didn’t fully appreciate the ins and outs of it. There are other bodies that represent specific sectors like homebuilt/vintage (ILAS) and microlights (NMAI). They will no doubt have submissions, but in terms of an overall organisation representing all strands of GA, then we sadly don’t have anything.
boscomantico wrote:
Europe has a much higher diversity, lots more gliders, trikes, balloons, microlights, etc.
At my base, one of several similar sized GA airports in a small area, there are 600 daily operations of planes ranging from Autogyros to G550s. The areas total is something like 1400 daily. On the approach track to the large local commercial (airliner dominated) airport is one of the busiest glider airports in the US. l have flown there twice (with a friend) and both times achieved over 16,000 ft altitude, looking down at airliners in Class E, non-radio.
ADS-B surely helps but cooperative attitudes, skilled ATC and understanding that airspace is a public resource, not a government or commercial resource are IMHO bigger factors, along with some level or reasonable risk acceptance by everybody involved.
WilliamF wrote:
I agree. AOPA Ireland came apart at the seams over 20 years ago
Does AOPA have any muscles whatsoever anywhere in Europe? In Norway NLF organizes all flying, and is the only one with any political saying. AOPA do exist, but is largely invisible.
Silvaire wrote:
What I find interesting in reading views on airspace management is the acceptance by some that VFR aircraft should be routinely in contact with ATC for their entire flight. I would find that really obnoxious if it were the case, certainty would not fly if it were true for me, and I’m sure that’s equally so for almost anybody I know operating here in some of the busiest airspace worldwide.
When I got my PPL in 1992, the way to do cross country VFR (the way taught) was to file a FP. Then, when flying, you should call ATC at approximately 20 min intervals and report position and alt and say “operation normal” 
That was before all these airspaces we have today. Today it is none of that, but ATC do like you to keep in radio contact below TMAs, and can be rather vicious if you don’t. Flying over large stretches of unlandable terrain or sea, it does feel kind of nice to know that someone knows where you are in case that thing in the nose should quit. Out in the prairie and desert land with sunshine 365 days a year, it’s another story I would think.
There are several odd things here. I fly a lot as an instructor. It’s an international airport with around 60k operations per year on a single runway. What I have seen more and more of is pilots on foreign airliners being almost obsessed with knowing the exact position of GA aircraft in the circuits. Some of them sounds scared. Several times the tower had to confirm that the GA aircraft is on a holding pattern or downwind etc. Don’t know why this happens, but I suspect it is due to some TCAS or whatever it is they have on board giving warning signals. Who knows, maybe those “terrified” pilots also file reports about these “near accidents”, and those reports are used later to make “safer” airspaces Knowing too many details without knowing all the facts isn’t necessarily better than knowing nothing. I believe that ADSB and similar only will make things worse.
LeSving wrote:
I believe that ADSB and similar only will make things worse.
Disagree. With ADS-B in you see exactly where the traffic is.
Other than that, you may well be correct about the TCAS alarms. We occasionally have a similar issue here at my secondary base, Hawthorne/KHHR, which sits right next to KLAX. On an IAP ATC will typically vector you on to the final app course at an angle, partly to avoid setting off the alarms in the jets going into the south complex at KLAX.
When I first started flying here, pilots would routinely avoid CAS to avoid ever talking to any ATS except when they had to eg in the circuit
To get a better situational awareness of aircraft flying around the country, the DGAC strengthened, simplified, and created a more joined up SIV (FIS).
The idea was the pilots should not be forced to talk to anyone OCAS but that the services offered should be such that pilots would want to use them. As in eg flight following in the USA.
It has taken many years, but now the majority of French pilots happily talk to the SIV as they find it can drastically reduce workload and provide a friendly voice when the cockpit becomes a lonely place.
boscomantico wrote:
Some countries „solve“ the problem by using class E airspace, but while that is OK for VFR traffic, it still does not solve the potential collision risk between VFR and IFR (which is what certain airspace planners think is the most important thing).
In practise it works very well. The USA was doing it long before ADS-B was available.
I’m not sure why so many European countries have to re-invent the wheel on airspace, when all they need to do is look west and see what works in one of the busiest airspace systems in the world – and not only that, works well. It’s almost like these airspace designers believe they are doing something completely novel.
Well, Germany has almost the same airspace stucture as the US. And I can tell you that it does NOT work perfectly. It can’t. When you have regional airports like Lübeck or Laage (class D CTRs only up to 2500 feet, class E above), with airline traffic, sooner or later, there will be (and there are) near misses with all sorts of aircraft operating legally, in class E, non-radio and non transponder in the approach / departure sectors.
Now, you can always say that it is poor airmanship by these pilots not avoiding these approach/departure sectors of such airports, and that therefore the situation would be solved by airmanship, but in practice, it is just not always the case.
So, a certain understanding for airspace planners wanting to keep airliners in a known traffic environment I have.
